[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71380-71383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27048]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 15

[ET Docket No. 01-278; FCC 04-262]


Radio Frequency Device Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document addresses three petitions for reconsideration of 
various aspects of the rule changes adopted in the Second Report and 
Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order (Second Report and Order) in 
this proceeding. In particular, the Commission: Grants a request to 
permit compliance information statements for self-authorized equipment 
to be provided in alternative formats; grants a request to permit 
longer duration transmissions during the setup of security systems; and 
denies a requests to permit electronic labeling of self-authorized 
equipment, to further relax the equipment authorization requirements 
for low frequency intentional radiators and to require foreign 
regulators to accept accreditations of United States laboratories.

DATES: Effective January 10, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh VanTuyl, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, (202) 418-7506, TTY (202) 418-2989, e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 01-278, FCC 04-262, adopted 
November 5, 2004 and released November 9, 2004. The full text of this 
document is available on the Commission's Internet site at www.fcc.gov. 
It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street., 
SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document also may be 
purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-5563.

[[Page 71381]]

Summary of the Report and Order

    1. In the Second Report and Order, 68 FR 68531, December 9, 2003, 
the Commission updated certain regulations contained in parts 2, 15, 
and 18 of the rules. Three parties filed petitions for reconsideration 
of the changes adopted in the Second Report and Order. Cisco Systems, 
Inc. (Cisco) requests that the Commission expand the scope of the rule 
changes that allows manufacturers to provide part 15 information 
statements in alternative forms to include the compliance information 
statement supplied with equipment authorized under the Declaration of 
Conformity (DoC) procedure. G.E. Interlogix, Inc. requests that the 
Commission reconsider its decision on remote control devices that 
prohibits installers of security systems from exceeding the five second 
limit on manual and automatic transmissions in Sec.  15.231 during the 
equipment set-up process. The Information Technology Industry Council 
requests that the Commission: Make additional changes to the labeling 
requirements for self-authorized equipment to permit electronic 
labeling for equipment subject to DoC as it does for software defined 
radios; allow manufacturers to provide the compliance information in 
alternative forms for equipment authorized under the DoC procedure as 
is now permitted for part 15 information statements; extend the relaxed 
equipment authorization requirements for low-frequency, low-powered 
intentional radiators to higher frequencies; and insist that foreign 
regulators accept accreditations of United States laboratories, 
including manufacturers' laboratories.

DoC Compliance Information Statements

    2. In their petitions, Cisco and ITI note that the rule changes 
adopted in the Second Report and Order that allow information 
statements to be supplied in alternative forms do not apply to the 
compliance information statements that are required by Sec.  2.1077 to 
be supplied with equipment authorized under the DoC procedure. Cisco 
states that the omission of Sec.  2.1077 from the same treatment of 
other information was not recognized by the industry during the filing 
of comments during the FCC proceeding. It states that in reviewing the 
requirements and comparing the various types of information, it cannot 
identify any good reason why the DoC compliance information statement 
should not be included among the documents that manufacturers can 
provide to end users over the Internet. Cisco further states that 
because manufacturers cannot provide this information over the 
Internet, manufacturers and users will bear the cost of providing the 
information with a product with no clear regulatory benefit to anyone. 
ITI requests that the Commission revise Sec.  2.1077 to make the rule 
consistent with the revised part 15 rules for providing information 
statements in alternative formats.
    3. The exclusion of DoC compliance statements from the same 
treatment as part 15 information statements was an inadvertent omission 
by the Commission that, as Cisco notes, was not recognized by industry 
at the time comments were filed in this proceeding. We agree with Cisco 
and ITI that permitting DoC compliance information statements to be 
provided in alternative formats will offer increased flexibility to 
manufacturers and result in cost savings to the industry. Accordingly, 
we are amending Sec.  2.1077 of the rules to allow DoC compliance 
statements to be provided in formats other than paper, such as on a 
computer disk or over the Internet. Consistent with the Commission's 
actions in the Second Report and Order for part 15 information 
statements, we will allow compliance information statements to be 
provided in alterative forms only when the instruction manual is 
provided in the same alternative form and the user can reasonably be 
expected to have the capability to access information in that form. 
These requirements will help ensure that the DoC compliance information 
statement is accessible to all persons using a given device.

Remote Control Device Transmission Duration Limits

    4. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission denied a request 
by G.E. Interlogix to modify Sec.  15.231 of the rules to allow remote 
control devices to be operated with transmission durations greater than 
five seconds during equipment setup. In its petition for 
reconsideration, G.E. Interlogix states that it met with Commission 
representatives in January 2001 and discussed the problem of security 
systems requiring a lengthier setup period for new systems than could 
be accomplished within the five second period permitted under Sec.  
15.231. G.E. Interlogix states that it advised the Commission staff 
that while setup transmissions can, in theory, be performed in the 
manual mode, in practice, systems are designed for an automatic 
download of setup data and the five second transmission limitation can 
be too restrictive for certain sophisticated systems. It further 
advised that system setup generally occurs only once, but in rare cases 
such as a property changing hands or system failure, a system must be 
reinitialized. G.E. Interlogix submitted a copy of an interpretation 
letter issued by staff at the Commission's Laboratory stating that a 
transmission that exceeds the five second limit in Sec.  15.231 is 
permissible to initiate a system, provided it occurs only once. G.E. 
Interlogix states that while its comments filed in response to the NPRM 
requested that the Commission codify this interpretation, it did not 
supply supportive data because it considered the request to be non-
controversial. It states that setup transmissions used by all wireless 
security systems are not control signals in the strict sense, nor are 
they recognition codes, and the part 15 rules were never specifically 
designed to account for them. It further states that setup 
transmissions are not performed by the user of the security equipment 
and are not transmissions that occur during the functioning of the 
security system. Rather, they are transmissions that provide a system 
with the initial programming required for operation. GE Interlogix 
states that in a sophisticated security system the setup process can 
exceed five seconds because a low data rate is required to reliably 
transmit the setup information at the low signal levels permitted by 
the rules. It requests that the Commission: Reconsider its decision in 
the Second Report and Order and permit transmission of setup 
information for security systems in excess of five seconds, provided 
such transmissions are under the control of a professional installer, 
and clarify that data transmissions during a setup procedure are 
permitted under Sec.  15.231. G.E. Interlogix notes that none of its 
systems use setup transmissions in excess of ten seconds.
    5. The Commission denied G.E. Interlogix's request to modify Sec.  
15.231 in the Second Report and Order because it did not provide 
sufficient justification for a change to this rule section. Based upon 
the additional information supplied in G.E. Interlogix's petition, we 
are persuaded that there is, in some cases, a need to allow installers 
of complex security systems to initiate transmissions of greater than 
the five second duration permitted by Sec.  15.231. We are therefore 
amending Sec.  15.231 of the rules to allow setup transmissions, 
including data, of greater than the five second limit in Sec.  
15.231(a)(1) and (a)(2), provided such transmissions are under the 
control of a professional installer. To minimize the likelihood of 
interference

[[Page 71382]]

to authorized users of the spectrum, we will limit setup transmissions 
to no more than ten seconds, which G.E. Interlogix indicates is 
adequate for all of its systems. This action will allow manufacturers 
greater flexibility in the design of complex security systems while 
resulting in a negligible increase in interference potential for these 
systems because the longer duration transmissions are only five seconds 
longer than the rules currently allow and will generally occur only 
once per system.

Declaration of Conformity (DoC) Labeling

    6. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission simplified the 
labeling requirements for equipment authorized under the DoC procedure. 
For most devices authorized under the DoC procedure, the changed rule 
requires that the label show the FCC logo and the equipment trade name 
and model number. The Commission also clarified in the Second Report 
and Order that the trade name and model number may be placed on the 
equipment in a location other than on the DoC label when necessary. In 
addition, the Commission denied a request by ITI and other parties to 
permit electronic labeling for equipment authorized under the DoC 
procedure. In denying ITI's request, the Commission stated that the 
part 2 rules permit electronic labeling for software defined radios 
because there is sometimes a need for a third party to change the 
identification number of a radio in the field when changes are made to 
the software that affect the device's operating frequency, modulation 
type or maximum output power. This permits the identification number to 
be changed without physical re-labeling of a radio. The Commission 
stated that none of the comments in this proceeding have shown that 
there is a similar need to allow this capability in equipment subject 
to DoC.
    7. In its petition, ITI repeats its request that the Commission 
permit electronic labeling for equipment subject to DoC. It states that 
this change would reduce costs for products that already have displays 
because the identifying marks could be maintained in memory and 
displayed on startup or on demand while the product is operating. ITI 
further states that electronic labeling could be used by the Commission 
for product approval purposes such as the difficult administrative task 
of tracking grant notices.
    8. The Commission considered and rejected ITI's request to allow 
electronic labeling of equipment subject to DoC in the Second Report 
and Order. ITI has not provided any new information in its petition 
that would lead us to change our decision on this subject. The revised 
DoC labeling rules require only the FCC logo, equipment trade name and 
model number on a device, and manufacturers already place a trade name 
and model number on virtually all devices made. Therefore, the DoC 
labeling requirement is not a significant burden. Further, there is not 
a need to change the identification information for devices subject to 
DoC after manufacture as there is for software defined radios where the 
operating parameters and FCC identification number may be changed post-
manufacture. ITI has also not shown how electronic labeling could be 
used by the Commission for product approval purposes, such as tracking 
grant notices, because there is no grant notice for equipment subject 
to DoC. Accordingly, we decline to allow electronic labeling for 
equipment subject to DoC.

Other Matters

    9. Very low power intentional radiators. In the Second Report and 
Order, the Commission changed the equipment authorization requirement 
from certification to verification for intentional radiators operating 
below 490 kHz in which all emissions are at least 40 dB below the part 
15 limit.
    10. The Commission stated that because the interference potential 
of such devices is extremely low, requiring certification seems to be 
an unnecessary burden on manufacturers. ITI states that it supports the 
Commission's decision to eliminate the certification requirement for 
very low powered intentional radiators, but requests that the 
Commission consider extending the verification process to higher 
frequency bands. However, ITI did not provide specific information on 
the operating parameters (e.g., frequency range or output signal level) 
for intentional radiators that it believes should be subject to 
verification or provide technical justification for making changes to 
the authorization requirement for certain intentional radiators. Based 
on the lack of a specific request and record on this issue, we decline 
to make further changes to the authorization requirements for very low 
power intentional radiators at this time.
    11. Accreditation of test laboratories. In the Second Report and 
Order, the Commission eliminated the requirement for an accredited 
laboratory to file a description of its measurement facilities with the 
Commission if the accrediting organization submitted certain 
information about the laboratory to the Commission. The purpose of this 
change was to reduce the burden on laboratories by eliminating the need 
to file duplicate information with both the Commission and an 
accrediting organization. ITI requests that in addition to this change, 
the Commission insist that foreign regulators also accept similar 
accreditations from U.S. laboratories, including manufacturer's 
laboratories, but it did not identify any specific rule changes that 
the Commission could make to accomplish this objective. This issue is 
more appropriately addressed in the context of negotiating mutual 
recognition agreements or arrangements (MRAs) with other 
administrations than in this proceeding. We therefore decline to make 
any rule changes concerning the acceptance of U.S. laboratory 
accreditations by foreign regulators.

Procedural Matters

    12. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),\1\ requires that a 
regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, 
unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' \2\ The 
RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same 
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and 
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' \3\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\4\ A small business concern is one which: 
(1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its 
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the Small Business Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. 
seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act 
of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1966) (CWAAA). Title II 
of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
    \2\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \3\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \4\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 
632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a 
small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with 
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and 
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more 
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of 
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal 
Register.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. The Second Report and Order modified the rules to allow part 15 
information statements to be provided to the user of equipment in 
alternative forms, such as on a CD-ROM or over the

[[Page 71383]]

Internet. The Second Report and Order also denied a request by G.E. 
Interlogix to allow security system setup transmissions of greater 
duration than the five second limit currently in Sec.  15.231(a) of the 
rules. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was incorporated in the 
Second Report and Order.\5\ Following publication of the Second Report 
and Order, Cisco and ITI filed their petitions seeking to allow the 
compliance information statement for equipment authorized under the DoC 
procedure to be provided in alternative forms. G.E. Interlogix filed a 
petition requesting that the Commission reconsider its denial of G.E. 
Interlogix's request to permit longer duration transmissions during the 
setup of security systems. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order we are 
amending the rules to allow DoC compliance information statements to be 
included in alternative forms and to allow longer duration setup 
transmissions for security systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 68 FR 68531, 68541, December 9, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. These amendments to the rules will affect manufacturers of 
radio frequency devices that are authorized under the DoC procedure and 
manufacturers of security systems, and it is the Commission's belief 
that many of these manufacturers are small businesses. The changes in 
the Memorandum Opinion and Order are deregulatory in nature because 
they eliminate the need for manufacturers to supply paper statements 
with equipment subject to DoC and allow greater flexibility in the 
setup of security systems. For this reason, these changes will not 
result in a ``significant economic burden'' on manufacturers. 
Therefore, we certify that the amendments included in the Memorandum 
Opinion and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    15. The Commission will send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, including a copy of this final certification, in a report to 
Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996.\6\ In addition, the Memorandum Opinion and Order and this 
certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ordering Clauses

    16. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302, 
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order is adopted and parts 2 and 15 of the 
Commission's Rules are amended as set forth in the attached appendix 
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
    17. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302, 
303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the 
motion for partial reconsideration filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. on 
September 12, 2003 is granted to the extent indicated herein.
    18. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302, 
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the 
motion for reconsideration and clarification filed by the Information 
Technology Institute on September 17, 2003 is granted in part and 
denied in part to the extent indicated herein.
    19. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302, 
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the 
petition for reconsideration filed by G.E. Interlogix, Inc. on January 
8, 2004 is granted to the extent indicated herein.
    20. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subjects in Parts 2 and 15

    Communications equipment.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.

Rule Changes

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 2 and 15 to read as 
follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 2.1077 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  2.1077  Compliance information.

* * * * *
    (c) The compliance information statement shall be included in the 
user's manual or as a separate sheet. In cases where the manual is 
provided only in a form other than paper, such as on a computer disk or 
over the Internet, the information required by this section may be 
included in the manual in that alternative form, provided the user can 
reasonably be expected to have the capability to access information in 
that form.

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

0
3. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

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


0
4. Section 15.231 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  15.231  Periodic operation in the band 40.66-40.70 MHz and above 
70 MHz.

    (a) * * *
0
(5) Transmission of set-up information for security systems may exceed 
the transmission duration limits in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of 
this section, provided such transmissions are under the control of a 
professional installer and do not exceed ten seconds after a manually 
operated switch is released or a transmitter is activated 
automatically. Such set-up information may include data.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-27048 Filed 12-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P