[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57181-57183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22784]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 68

[CC Docket No. 99-216, FCC 02-103]


2000 Biennial Regulatory Review of Adopting Technical Criteria 
and Approving Terminal Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission addresses requests to 
reconsider portions of the Commission's Report and Order published 
Wednesday, January 24, 2001 (66 FR 7579) that modified its rules 
governing the connection of terminal equipment to the public switched 
telephone network to streamline the standards development and approval 
processes for terminal equipment.

DATES: Effective October 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hays, Industry Analysis and 
Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, voice 202-418-0875, 
fax 202-418-0520.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Order on Reconsideration, the 
Commission addressed several issues raised in ex parte comments or in 
petitions for reconsideration and subsequent pleadings.
    The Commission clarified, pursuant to a request by the 
Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments (Administrative 
Council) seeking clarification of Sec.  68.602(c), that a formal 
contract is not required between the Administrative Council and its 
sponsors. In establishing Sec.  68.602(c), the Commission intended to 
ensure that the nature of the arrangement between the Administrative 
Council and its sponsor(s) is subject to public disclosure. The 
Administrative Council states that it will develop a statement of work 
or similar document pertaining to its relationship with its sponsors, 
and make the document available online and from the secretariat upon 
request. The Commission found that this would be sufficient for 
purposes of compliance with Sec.  68.602(c).
    The Commission denied petitions to reconsider the supplier's 
declaration of conformity (SDoC) procedure established in the Report 
and Order, stating that the Commission has long permitted testing of 
part 68 equipment by non-accredited laboratories, with few documented 
problems, and has required laboratory accreditation only in instances 
where the test procedures are sufficiently complex so as to raise 
concerns about the tests being performed properly. The Commission found 
no such concerns with the tests required for part 68 terminal 
equipment. Moreover, the Commission stated that commenters' concerns 
that use of the SDoC process will lead to non-compliant equipment are 
unfounded.
    The Commission granted Industry Canada's request to delete the 
requirement in Sec.  68.321 of the rules that responsible parties be 
located within the United States. The Commission amended Sec.  68.321 
to specify that responsible parties must designate an agent for service 
of process that maintains an office within the United States.
    The Commission denied the petition by the American National 
Standards Institute to accept standards development by the Canvass 
method of consensus for technical criteria, but granted the American 
National Standards Institute petition as to appeals procedures. The 
Commission found that the Organization and Standards Committee methods 
of development provide additional assurance of public participation, 
similar to that provided in a rulemaking proceeding, by allowing open 
participation. Thus, the Commission intends to ensure that interested 
parties have a voice in drafting the standards at an early stage in the 
standards development process. Notwithstanding the American National 
Standards Institute's finding that the Canvassing method ultimately 
provides a similar level of due process afforded by the other two 
methods, the Commission found that for the purpose of developing 
technical criteria, it is essential for all interested parties to have 
an opportunity to enjoy full participation in the standards development 
process from the outset of that process.
    In addition, the Commission clarified on its own motion that after 
technical criteria are published, and the 30-day public notice period 
passes, technical criteria will be deemed to be presumptively valid and 
remain so during appeal, unless they are subsequently invalidated by 
the standards development organization, the Administrative Council, the 
American National Standards Institute, or the Commission.
    The Commission granted the requests of several petitioners to 
eliminate the provisions in Sec. Sec.  68.354(d) and 68.612 requiring 
the manufacturer(s) of terminal equipment to be identified on the label 
and in the database of approved terminal equipment. The Commission 
found that current business practices often are that the licensing 
entity, whose name is on the product, contracts with several 
manufacturers to produce the equipment. In such case the relevant 
entity is the licensing party, not the manufacturer. These contract 
manufacturers are numerous and may change frequently and, perhaps most 
importantly, their identities are proprietary information for the 
licensing entity.
    The Commission also denied petitions to retain the technical rules 
for type B surge requirements. The Commission stated that the 
privatized system is the most efficient and responsive method for 
addressing future updates to the technical criteria for terminal 
equipment. It found that BellSouth's concerns, that the Type B surge 
requirements would be eliminated under the privatized system, are 
unfounded. The Commission pointed out that the Administrative Council 
has no discretion unilaterally to remove the Type B surge requirements. 
Standards development organizations that meet the requirements of the 
Report and Order are the only entities that may formulate changes to, 
or ultimately eliminate, technical criteria. Such standards development 
organizations must permit open participation in the development or 
amendment of technical requirements, and they must follow consensus 
procedures. The Administrative Council merely publishes these criteria 
after ensuring the Commission's requirements were met. Moreover, the 
Commission retains de novo review, appeals and enforcement jurisdiction 
in the event of an appeal of technical criteria.
    On its own motion, the Commission amended Sec.  68.162(e)(5)(i) to 
clarify that the Administrative Council is responsible for publishing 
technical

[[Page 57182]]

criteria, and Sec.  68.162(g) to provide that certificates issued by 
Telecommunications Certification Bodies be given to the Administrative 
Council rather than to the Commission.
    The Commission declined to take further action on a 1998 Biennial 
Review proceeding regarding signal power limitations, but allowed the 
industry to develop standards if it determines such standards are 
appropriate and reasonable. In addition, the Commission clarified that 
the Administrative Council shall publish the technical criteria that 
have been the subject of its streamlined waiver proceedings.

Procedural Matters

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found not to impose new or modified 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In the Report and Order, the Commission concluded that privatizing 
the terminal equipment registration process would reduce unnecessary 
costs and delays currently imposed upon suppliers and the Commission 
without measurably increasing the possibility of harm to the network. 
The Commission found that registration of terminal equipment shall 
continue, but that suppliers may show compliance with the technical 
criteria through one of two means. First, suppliers may seek approval 
of terminal equipment's compliance with the relevant technical criteria 
from private Telecommunications Certification Bodies. In the 
alternative, suppliers may show compliance through the SDoC method of 
equipment approval. Upon weighing the substantial benefits of 
accelerating the terminal equipment approval process against the 
unlikely possibility of any cost increases associated with harm to the 
PSTN that may result from a decreased presence of the Commission in the 
approval process, the Commission concluded that is no longer in the 
public interest for it to continue its Part 68 registration functions.
    This Order on Reconsideration affirms the Commission's findings 
with regard to these provisions, and hence the economic effect on small 
businesses will not change from that discussed in the Report and Order. 
Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this Order on 
Reconsideration will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy 
of this Order on Reconsideration including a copy of this 
Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, this Order on 
Reconsideration and this certification will be sent to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and will be 
published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in Sections 1-4, 201-205 and 303(r) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-205 and 303(r), this order 
on reconsideration in CC Docket No. 99-216 and order terminating 
proceeding in CC Docket No. 98-163 is hereby adopted and Part 68 of the 
Commission's rules are amended as set forth. It is further ordered that 
the amendments of the Commission's rules as set forth are adopted, 
effective October 9, 2002.
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Order on Reconsideration, including the Supplemental Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 68

    Communications common carriers, Terminal equipment, Technical 
criteria.

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends part 68 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 68--CONNECTION OF TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE TELEPHONE NETWORK

    1. The authority citation for part 68 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.


    2. Section 68.162(f)(5)(i) and (g)(1) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  68.162  Requirements for Telecommunication Certification Bodies.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) Grant a waiver of Commission rules or technical criteria 
published by the Administrative Council, or certify equipment for which 
Commission rules or requirements, or technical criteria do not exist, 
or for which the application of the rules or requirements, or technical 
criteria is unclear.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) A Telecommunications Certification Body shall supply a copy of 
each approved application form and grant of certification to the 
Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments.
* * * * *

    3. Section 68.321 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  68.321  Location of responsible party.

    The responsible party for a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity 
must designate an agent for service of process that is physically 
located within the United States.

    4. Section 68.354(d) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  68.354  Numbering and labeling requirements for terminal 
equipment.

* * * * *
    (d) Labeling developed for terminal equipment by the Administrative 
Council on Terminal Attachments shall contain sufficient information 
for providers of wireline telecommunications, the Federal 
Communications Commission, and the U.S. Customs Service to carry out 
their functions, and for consumers to easily identify the responsible 
party of their terminal equipment. The numbering and labeling scheme 
shall be nondiscriminatory, creating no competitive advantage for any 
entity or segment of the industry.
* * * * *
    5. Section 68.602(c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  68.602  Sponsor of the Administrative Council for Terminal 
Attachments.

* * * * *
    (c) After the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments is 
populated, the sponsors are responsible for fulfilling secretariat 
positions as determined by the Administrative Council for Terminal 
Attachments. The Administrative Council shall post on a publicly 
available web site and make available to the public in hard copy form 
the written agreement into which it enters with the sponsor or 
sponsors.
    6. Section 68.612 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 57183]]

Sec.  68.612  Labels on terminal equipment.

    Terminal equipment certified by a Telecommunications Certification 
Body or approved by the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity under this 
part shall be labeled. The Administrative Council for Terminal 
Attachments shall establish appropriate labeling of terminal equipment. 
Labeling shall meet the requirements of the Federal Communications 
Commission and the U.S. Customs Service for their respective 
enforcement purposes, and of consumers for purposes of identifying the 
responsible party and model number.

[FR Doc. 02-22784 Filed 9-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P