[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33425-33449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14072]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 15 and 68

[ET Docket No. 13-44; FCC 14-208]


Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document updates the Federal Communications Commission's 
(the Commission) radiofrequency (RF) equipment authorization program. 
The rules adopted by the Commission build on the success realized by 
our use of

[[Page 33426]]

Commission-recognized Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs) and 
will facilitate the continued rapid introduction of new and innovative 
products to the market while ensuring that these products do not cause 
harmful interference to each other or to other communication devices 
and services.

DATES: Effective July 13, 2015. The incorporation by reference listed 
in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
July 13, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Butler, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, 202-418-2702, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, ET Docket No. 13-44, FCC 14-208, adopted December 17, 2014, 
and released December 30, 2014. The full text of this document is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: 
www.fcc.gov.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Summary of the Report and Order

    1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') in this 
proceeding, the Commission proposed certain changes to ensure that its 
part 2 equipment authorization processes continue to operate 
efficiently and effectively, See Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of 
the Commission's Rules regarding Authorization of Radiofrequency 
Equipment and Amendment of Part 68 regarding Approval of Terminal 
Equipment by Telecommunications Certification Bodies, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 13-44, 28 FCC Rcd 1606 (2013) 
(NPRM); 78 FR 25916, May 3, 2013.
    2. Specifically, the Commission proposed to clarify the obligations 
of TCBs and to strengthen the Commission's oversight of the TCBs. The 
Commission also proposed to require accreditation for all laboratories 
performing equipment authorization compliance tests. The Commission 
also proposed adopting updates to the measurement procedures used to 
determine RF equipment compliance.
    3. In this Report and Order, the Commission updated its 
radiofrequency (RF) equipment authorization program. Specifically, it:
     Discontinued FCC acceptance of applications for equipment 
Certification of RF equipment and instead permitted TCBs to process and 
grant all applications for Certification;
     Codified a pre-grant approval procedure that TCBs must 
follow when certifying equipment based on new technology that requires 
consultation with the FCC;
     Clarified a TCB's responsibilities in performing post-
market surveillance of products it has approved;
     Specified steps for addressing instances of deficient TCB 
performance, including appropriate sanctions for deficiencies that do 
not warrant rescinding a TCB's authority to issue a grant of 
Certification;
     Modified the rules to reference new 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;
     Required accreditation of all laboratories that test 
equipment subject to any of the certification procedures under part 2 
of the Commission's rules and codify a procedure through which the 
Commission currently recognizes new laboratory accreditation bodies;
     Updated references to industry measurement procedures in 
the Commission's rules; and
     Provided greater flexibility under the Office of 
Engineering and Technology's (OET) existing delegated authority to 
enable it to address minor technical issues that may be raised when 
updating to the latest versions of industry standards that are 
referenced in parts 2, 5, 15, and 18 of the Commission's rules.

TCB Program

    4. TCBs currently approve more than 98 percent of the RF equipment 
subject to the Certification process but are 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. 
Currently, OET publishes an ``exclusion list'' of the types of 
equipment that a TCB is not allowed to certify 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 a TCB to review applications for Certification of equipment that 
would otherwise be excluded from TCB approval, provided that OET 
guidance on the specific test methods and technical requirements is 
sought prior to filing the application for Certification. 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 prior to issuing a grant of Certification.
    5. The Commission maintains a publicly-available database of all RF 
equipment certified by the Commission and TCBs (the Equipment 
Authorization System or ``EAS'') that contains copies of applications 
for and grants of Certification. This database also contains 
information on all entities recognized by the Commission in the 
equipment authorization process, thus allowing the Commission to 
monitor the activities of TCBs and the equipment authorization program 
in general.
1. Certification of RF Equipment
a. Application Processing Procedures
    6. The Commission adopted the NPRM proposal to allow TCBs to issue 
all grants of equipment Certification, and to discontinue OET's 
acceptance and granting of applications for equipment Certification. 
Furthermore, the Commission eliminated the exclusion list and replaced 
it with pre-approval guidance procedures as proposed in the NPRM and 
supported by most of the commenters who addressed this issue. All items 
that were on the exclusion list or considered under the ``permit-but-
ask'' procedure will now be considered under the pre-approval guidance 
procedures. Further, future changes to the devices and procedures 
included on the list will be made in a similar manner as the ``permit-
but-ask'' list has been maintained, that is, via Commission/OET 
decision documents and OET Laboratory KDB guidance. Finally, the 
Commission adopted its proposal to allow TCBs to dismiss Certification 
applications consistent with the Commission's current dismissal 
authority, as also supported by several parties. The Commission also 
amended its rules to uniformly employ the phrase ``set aside'' to 
reference a TCB's decision to take back the grant of a Certification. 
In response to a question raised by Bay Area Compliance Laboratories 
Corp. (BACL), the Commission noted that TCBs will have authority to 
dismiss only those applications that have been submitted to them, and 
not those submitted to other TCBs. Similarly, TCBs will have authority 
to set aside only those grants of Certification that they have issued 
within the prior 30 days, and not those granted by other TCBs.

[[Page 33427]]

    7. As it adopted the proposals to fully shift application 
processing to TCBs, the Commission noted its experience that TCBs have 
generally done an excellent job of reviewing and granting applications 
and following OET staff guidance on technical matters. The Commission 
noted that the various actions taken in the order would improve its 
oversight of the TCBs and ensure that products subject to Certification 
will comply with FCC rules. The Commission concluded that the adopted 
measures would continue the successful migration of additional 
responsibilities to TCBs while maintaining our control over the 
critical elements of the process, thus addressing National Association 
of Broadcasters' (NAB) underlying concern that devices with a greater 
potential for causing harmful interference are properly evaluated 
before being approved. The Commission also noted that, while ARRL, the 
National Association for Amateur Radio (ARRL) claims that the current 
TCB approval process has resulted in numerous incorrect grants of 
Certification, the group mentioned only one particular instance where 
an incorrect grant was alleged. The Commission did not find ARRLs 
arguments against the TCB processing proposals persuasive because ARRL 
had not provided any specific information to support this claim.
b. Application Filing Procedures
    8. The Commission adopted the proposals made in the NPRM to codify 
existing application filing practice into its rules by modifying Sec.  
2.911 to specify how applicants will file with TCBs and modifying Sec.  
2.962 to specify that TCBs will file certification application 
information with the Commission electronically through the Commission's 
EAS. The Commission adopted its proposal to require TCBs to document 
via the EAS all information relevant to the processing of an 
application for certification, including pre-approval guidance 
inquiries and the dismissal of any applications. The Commission amended 
various sections of part 2 to reflect the TCB role in the Certification 
process.
    9. The Commission decided to stop accepting applications for it to 
issue the grant of Certification as of the effective date of the Report 
and Order. The Commission modified Sec.  1.1103 of the rules to remove 
the equipment authorization services sections related to Certification, 
and stated that no fee will be charged by the Commission when a TCB 
issues a grant of Certification. The Commission determined that it 
would review any applications that it received prior to the effective 
date under current procedures.
    10. The Commission stated that Grants of certification are legal 
documents created by the TCB under the authority of the Commission when 
submitted to EAS, and must not be modified (by, for example, adding a 
letterhead or additional information) in any way.
    11. The Commission agreed with the Hewlett Packard Company (HP) 
that a TCB may combine the different statements required of 
applicants--such as the verification of truthfulness and compliance 
with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988--into a single document with a 
single signature set, so long as the applicant makes all necessary 
certifications. The Commission declined HP's request to require TCB's 
to accept materials submitted by an applicant in electronic form rather 
than paper. While the Commission acknowledged that it expected that 
TCBs would accommodate electronic submissions to promote efficiency and 
reduce costs, it decided not to not mandate such a requirement because 
the existence of numerous TCB choices will give applicants the option 
to select a TCB on a variety of factors, including the convenience or 
efficiency of their provision of service.
    12. The Commission did not adopt Bay Area Compliance Laboratories, 
Corp.'s (BACL) suggestion that it mandate the use of secure electronic 
signatures or require a time and date stamp on all documents submitted 
with the filing. The Commission was not convinced that the use of such 
requirements would fully resolve the issues of document authenticity, 
and stated that it expected TCBs to establish appropriate procedures to 
determine the veracity of documents.
    13. The Commission determined, in response to comments of Northwest 
EMC, Inc., that a TCB confirmation of the authenticity of the test 
reports that submitted with an application for certification and is 
necessary. The Commission cited the existing TCB requirement to review 
submitted tests in a manner that allows it to be ``confident that the 
product meets the relevant requirements before it certifies the 
product.'' and noted that its adoption of an accreditation requirement 
for all compliance testing laboratories would ensure that the data 
reviewed by TCBs was based on testing that was performed by a competent 
organization.
    14. The Commission found that Cisco and HP had not provided 
evidence to support their concern that TCBs could potentially establish 
higher fees to expedite the processing of applications. The Commission 
found it was not necessary to codify TCB fee requirements, noting the 
36 TCBs recognized by the Commission to provide equipment authorization 
services and observing that clients can choose their TCB based upon 
factors most relevant to them, including cost.
2. Post-Market Surveillance
    15. TCBs are required to be accredited, and accreditation is 
conditioned on their performance of post-market surveillance on 
products that it has certified. Section 2.962(g) of the Commission's 
rules provides general guidance regarding the scope of such post-market 
surveillance and the actions the TCB shall take in the event of a 
compliance problem. OET has developed specific procedures, detailed in 
KDB Publication 610077, that TCBs can use for performing post-market 
surveillance. The current guidance specifies a sample rate of at least 
5 percent.
    16. The Commission adopted its proposals to codify the guidelines 
currently appearing in the KDB for conducting post-market surveillance 
by placing them into Sec.  2.962 of the Commission's rules as mandatory 
requirements. The new Sec.  2.962 will address the amount of 
surveillance required, the responsibilities related to testing, the 
timing and content of periodic reports required to be submitted to the 
Commission, and other pertinent requirements.
    17. The Commission consolidated all part 2 rules referring to the 
post-market sampling process into Sec.  2.945, which codifies the 
current procedure whereby TCBs may request samples of equipment that 
they have certified directly from the grantee of Certification. 
Further, the Commission adopted the proposed procedure that permits OET 
to request the grantee of Certification to submit a sample directly to 
the TCB that issued the grant of Certification, and stated that failure 
to comply with a TCB request could lead to Commission enforcement 
action. The Commission required the TCB to immediately notify the 
grantee and the Commission if it determines that a device fails to 
comply with the Commission's rules, established that the grantee will 
be required to take corrective actions, and required the TCB to submit 
a follow-up report on these actions to the Commission within 30 days. 
The Commission also required TCBs to submit periodic reports of their 
post-market surveillance activities and findings to OET.
    18. The Commission also addressed specific process-related issues 
raised on the record. The Commission found little

[[Page 33428]]

benefit in allowing a TCB to perform post-market surveillance on a 
device that it did not certify and identified potential complications, 
such as anti-competitive behavior where one TCB could raise doubt about 
the performance of another. Thus, the Commission adopted the 
requirement that TCBs shall perform post-market surveillance only on 
devices for which they issued the grant of Certification. The 
Commission affirmed that when a grantee challenges a TCB's finding that 
a device does not comply with the FCC rules, the grantee will be 
provided with appropriate information about test results and 
methodologies and the Commission will be the final arbiter in cases 
where a TCB and grantee are not able to resolve disagreements about 
compliance.
    19. The Commission found that no commenter that filed in support of 
modifying the 5 percent sample size requirement provided sufficient 
evidence to justify either increasing or decreasing this number, and 
that in its monitoring of the market surveillance performed by TCBs, 
the Commission has found the vast majority of devices to be compliant. 
Most OET investigations have found that devices become non-compliant 
for reasons such as changes to the manufacturing process, and OET has 
been able to work with the grantee to resolve the matter and ensure 
compliance with our rules. When it has discovered manufacturers that 
are willfully non-compliant with our equipment authorization 
procedures, the Commission has not hesitated to take enforcement 
action.
    20. The Commission rejected the TCB Council's suggestion that 
permissive changes and changes in FCC IDs not be included in the 
sampling process on the basis that the request did not include any 
actual filing totals that would quantify how the proposed change would 
affect the post-market surveillance burden of a given TCB; because it 
is not apparent that excluding a wide segment of applications would 
further improve the compliance process, since many products are updated 
via permissive changes; and because the inappropriate use of a 
permissive change or an FCC ID change presents the opportunity for the 
introduction of non-compliant equipment that needs to be monitored by 
inclusion in the sampling activity.
    21. The Commission noted that, while the TCBs will continue to 
directly request samples from grantees, it intended to add a process to 
the EAS that allows TCBs to initiate a sample request from the 
Commission's EAS. This will allow the FCC to oversee the process, 
follow up directly with non-responsive grantees and improve the 
responsiveness of grantees.
    22. The Commission observed that the requirements placed upon both 
the TCBs and the grantees should be sufficient to ensure that equipment 
samples are submitted and processed in a manner that ensures valid 
post-market surveillance, and that samples provided for testing will be 
appropriately representative of the marketed device. Thus, the 
Commission did not adopt suggestions in the record to implement 
additional compliance measures such as criminal sanctions or consumer 
refunds.
    23. The Commission adopted the requirement that grantees, upon 
request, must provide a voucher to the Commission or the TCB 
authorizing the TCB to obtain a sample of the product from the 
marketplace at no cost to the Commission or TCB. As an alternative to 
providing a voucher, the grantee can allow the Commission or TCB to 
select a product randomly from the manufacturing or warehousing 
location. Furthermore, if special software or specialized mechanisms, 
methods, or modifications are required to test such unmodified 
production devices, the manufacturer must make these available (at no 
cost) along with any necessary instructions to the Commission or TCB 
upon request. In the case of expensive devices manufactured in limited 
numbers, the responsible party can negotiate with the TCB or the 
Commission for alternative means of providing a sample or providing a 
testing opportunity. The Commission agreed with commenters that such 
steps would help ensure that devices being post-market tested are 
representative of the devices being marketed.
3. Assessing TCB Performance
a. Designating Authority
    24. An entity seeking recognition from the Commission as a TCB 
entitled by the FCC to issue grants of Certification must first be 
accredited by a Commission-recognized accreditation body as meeting 
applicable international standards and any additional Commission 
requirements. Subsequent to accreditation, the TCB would then apply to 
a recognized Designating Authority in its country that would designate 
it to the Commission for recognition. The Designating Authority 
evaluates the qualifications of prospective TCBs to ensure that they 
comply with all of the Commission's TCB requirements, and then 
designates them to the Commission via the EAS. TCBs outside the United 
States must be accredited and designated by an authority recognized by 
the Commission under the terms of a Mutual Recognition Agreement. For 
both foreign and domestic TCBs, once the Commission receives the 
Designating Authority's designation, the Commission performs a review 
of the TCB's qualifications and recognizes those that it determines 
meet the requirements. A recognized TCB will then be included on the 
Commission's publicly- available recognized TCB list. The NPRM included 
several proposals to clarify and codify this process.
    25. All comments made in this regard supported the Commission's 
proposals, and the Commission revised Sec. Sec.  2.960(b) and 68.160(b) 
of the rules to state with clarity that NIST is the recognized 
Designating Authority for TCBs within the United States (consistent 
with existing practice). NIST will continue to have authority to 
recognize other organizations to accredit TCBs. The Commission adopted 
the proposals codifying the requirement 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. The Commission made the designation and 
recognition requirements for domestic and foreign TCBs more consistent 
by modifying Sec.  2.962 to clearly specify the recognition 
requirements for both foreign and domestic TCBs and address disputes 
over the recognition of foreign TCBs.
b. TCB Performance
    26. Currently, the rules state that the Commission will withdraw 
recognition of a domestic TCB if the TCB's accreditation or designation 
is withdrawn, if the Commission determines there is just cause for 
withdrawing the recognition, or if the TCB no longer wants the 
recognition. The rules do not specify any action less severe than the 
withdrawal of the designation or recognition of a TCB if the Commission 
has concerns about the performance of a TCB. In the NPRM, the 
Commission acknowledged that there can be performance issues which need 
correcting but do not warrant complete withdrawal of a TCB's 
recognition and it proposed measures that the Commission could take to 
address TCB performance issues.
    27. The Commission adopted the proposed procedures for addressing 
TCB performance issues: Initially, OET would send the TCB a 
notification to correct any apparent deficiencies. While it awaits 
response, OET may choose to monitor all grants, setting aside any that

[[Page 33429]]

were granted in error within the 30-day period provided for in the 
rules. If the TCB does not adequately address all identified 
deficiencies, OET will have the option of requiring that all 
Certification applications filed with that TCB would be processed using 
the pre-approval guidance procedure for a period of at least 30 days. 
Once a TCB demonstrates that it is again processing Certification 
applications in accordance with the rules, it would be permitted to 
resume normal processing.
    28. For a TCB that continues to exhibit performance deficiencies 
after a Commission request for corrective action, the Commission could 
refer the case to the Designating Authority and accreditation body for 
investigation and identification of any necessary corrective actions. 
For such instances, the Commission will act based on the Designating 
Authority's and/or the accrediting body's response by, for example, 
limiting the scope of equipment that a TCB could approve or withdrawing 
its recognition of the TCB. For a foreign TCB recognized pursuant to 
the terms of a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA), the Commission will 
take similar actions, under the terms of the pertinent MRA. Any 
equipment Certifications previously approved by the TCB would remain 
valid unless specifically set aside or revoked by the Commission.
    29. In adopting new procedures to address TCB performance issues, 
the Commission did not adopt American Association for Laboratory 
Accreditation's (A2LA) suggestion that the 60-day notice given to a TCB 
by the Commission when it intends to withdraw recognition be reduced 
routinely to 30 days, but the Commission did adopt the proposal 
permitting the reduction of the notice period if circumstances so 
warrant. The Commission identified other sanctions, including requiring 
the TCB to follow the pre-approval guidance procedure for all 
applications for certification before they can be granted, as well as 
an immediate suspension of recognition, if necessary. The Commission 
concluded that the procedures set forth are a clear indication of the 
Commission's willingness to address TCB performance issues, and address 
AFTRCC's concerns in this regard. The Commission noted that any finding 
that a TCB is non-compliant will be displayed on the Commission's Web 
site. Additionally, OET participates in workshops where TCBs are also 
required to attend in which OET presents changes and updates in the 
Commission rules; equipment authorization process and procedures; and 
updates to technical interpretations or guidance issued by the staff. 
Because these presentations are publicly available at the Commission's 
Web site, they include Commission guidance related to new or clarified 
TCB processes and procedures, and much of this guidance is the result 
of observations that OET derives from TCB audits and other information, 
the Commission concluded such processes are sufficient to address 
comments NAB raised regarding the overall transparency of the TCB 
process.
4. TCB Accreditation
    30. The rules currently 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. Subsequent to the adoption of the rules specifying these 
requirements, several ISO/IEC guides were updated. In the NPRM, the 
Commission proposed to modify the rules in parts 2 and 68 to reflect 
these updates. Specifically, the Commission proposed replacing 
references to Guide 58 and Guide 61 with references to ISO/IEC 17011, 
and to replace references to Guide 65 with references to ISO/IEC 17065. 
The Commission also proposed to change the term ``sub-contractors'' to 
``external resources'' in the part 2 and 68 rules for consistency with 
the revised ISO/IEC 17065. The Commission also proposed to update Sec.  
68.162 to correct outdated references to ISO/IEC Guide 25, which is now 
designated ISO/IEC 17025. In the Order, the Commission adopted these 
proposals and will require that the standards be met by September 15, 
2015--A date suggested by A2LA that conforms to the compliance date for 
ISO/IEC 17065 that was adopted in an International Accreditation Forum 
decision.

Test Laboratories

5. Accreditation of Test Laboratories
    31. The Certification and DoC processes specify the type of testing 
facility in which a product shall be tested for compliance with the 
Commission's technical standards. Devices authorized under the DoC 
process must be tested at a testing laboratory that OET recognizes as 
``accredited.'' Devices authorized under the Certification process for 
operation under that operates under part 15 or 18 of the Commission's 
rules must be tested in a facility that is either accredited or has 
been recognized by OET as having met the requirements of Sec.  2.948 of 
the Commission's rules (``Section 2.948-listed'').
    32. Laboratory accreditation is a rigorous process involving an 
extensive review of documentation and onsite visits by 
representative(s) of the accrediting body, a process repeated at 
intervals not to exceed two years. A testing laboratory may be 
recognized by the OET as accredited if it is assessed to the ISO/IEC 
17025 standard in accordance with the requirements in Sec.  2.948 of 
the Commission's rules. The accreditation of a foreign-based testing 
laboratory is considered acceptable under only one of the following 
conditions: (1) It is based on the terms of an applicable government-
to-government MRA with the United States; or (2) the laboratory is 
accredited by an organization that has entered into an arrangement 
between accrediting organizations that is recognized by the Commission. 
On the other hand, a testing laboratory may be recognized as 2.948-
listed of our rules based upon OET review of the information specified 
by Sec.  2.948(b).
    33. The Commission adopted the NPRM proposal to require that all 
laboratories that test equipment subject to Certification or to DoC 
under any rule part be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025, thus ending the 
``2.948-listing'' program for unaccredited labs to test equipment to be 
certified under parts 15 and 18 of the rules. The Commission retained 
the requirement that accredited testing laboratories must be reassessed 
at least every two years to ensure continued compliance with the 
accreditation requirements to provide confidence that equipment testing 
done in support of Certification applications is conducted in 
accordance with the applicable standard and to maintain the reliability 
of and confidence in our certification program in the face of 
increasingly complex technology and devices. The Commission found 
little evidence in the record that the accreditation requirement 
represents a significant impact on small test laboratories and such 
concerns are greatly outweighed by the costs that can result when 
equipment causes harmful interference to other radio services or must 
be pulled from the market due to non-compliance that is the result of 
improper testing.
    34. The Commission further proposed to include laboratories located 
outside of the United States on the accredited testing laboratory list 
only if it recognized the laboratories' accreditation under the terms 
of a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) or other agreement. Because 
some testing laboratories are located in countries that do not have an 
MRA with the United States, the Commission proposed to continue to 
require in

[[Page 33430]]

Sec.  2.948 of the rules that such a laboratory must be accredited by 
an organization recognized by the Commission for performing 
accreditations in the country where the laboratory is located. The 
Commission sought comment on the appropriate process for recognizing 
the accreditation of testing laboratories in countries that do not have 
an MRA with the United States, such as by recognizing accreditations 
made by accreditation bodies that have been peer reviewed through the 
International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) or other 
organizations. Comments related to the appropriate process for 
recognizing the accreditation of test laboratories in countries that do 
not have an MRA with the United States were almost evenly split, with a 
slight majority indicating that we should not recognize foreign 
laboratories unless there is an MRA in place. The comments that 
supported the recognition of accredited testing laboratories located in 
non-MRA countries provided limited recommendations on procedures that 
would ensure that such testing laboratories have the appropriate 
capabilities and reliability and that all products approved are 
compliant with our rules. In this regard, the Commission decided that 
requests for recognition of testing laboratories in countries that do 
not have an MRA with the United States and which were accredited by 
accreditation bodies recognized by the Commission will be handled under 
our current procedures in Sec.  2.948.
    35. The Commission also adopted the requirement that testing 
laboratories may only sub-contract/outsource testing to laboratories 
that have been recognized by the Commission as accredited to the 
appropriate international standard. The Commission rejected comments 
asking it to adopt a more permissive rule that would also allow an 
accredited testing laboratory to sub-contract/outsource testing to a 
competent unaccredited entity. The Commission found it to be 
inconsistent to disallow submission of test results from an 
unaccredited submitting laboratory but allow submission of test results 
from an unaccredited sub-contracting laboratory. The Commission also 
noted that it had not been provided with any information indicating 
that sub-contracting with laboratories that are recognized by the 
Commission as accredited is more burdensome to applicants for 
certification than using a sub-contracting process that meets the 
requirements of ISO/IEC 17025, or that such burdens (if any) would be 
substantial enough to outweigh the benefits associated with ensuring 
that all work is performed by accredited laboratories. The Commission 
also found no reason to exempt bench testing from the accreditation 
requirement, citing the importance of ensuring that such tests are 
performed properly and observing that because equipment subject to 
certification is rarely subject only to bench tests, there would be 
little benefit in providing an exception for labs that perform only 
such testing.
    36. While the ``2.948 listing'' process was ended, the Commission 
decided that it would still maintain a list of accredited testing 
laboratories that are acceptable to the Commission for testing 
equipment subject to the Certification and DoC procedures, as well as 
the types of equipment that each laboratory is accredited to test. 
Additionally, the Commission decided to retain the requirement in Sec.  
2.948 that test laboratories compile a description of their measurement 
facilities and require that they supply this information to a 
laboratory accreditation body for review as part of its documentation 
for accreditation or to the Commission upon request.
    37. The Commission will cease recognizing new unaccredited 2.948-
listed laboratories as of the effective date of the rules adopted in 
the Report and Order. Laboratories recognized under the 2.948 criteria 
as of the effective date of this Report and Order will continue to 
appear on the OET published list for such laboratories and be 
recognized until their expiration date of recognition or for one year 
from the effective date, whichever is sooner, to allow them time to 
become accredited. 2.948-listed laboratories whose recognition expires 
prior to one year from the effective date of the rules may request that 
the Commission extend their recognition date until one year from the 
effective date of the rules set forth in the Report and Order. Any 
testing that is completed by unaccredited recognized 2.948-listed 
laboratories during the one-year period beginning on the effective date 
of the rules adopted in the Report and Order will be accepted only in 
support of a Certification application submitted within 15 months of 
the aforementioned effective date.
6. Selection of New Laboratory Accreditation Bodies
    38. 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. The Commission proposed, 
in the NPRM, to codify the type of information that an applicant that 
desires to be recognized as a laboratory accreditation body should 
provide in support of its application. Specifically, it proposed to 
codify the following criteria for OET to use when determining the 
acceptability of new laboratory accreditation bodies:
    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 tries that do not 
have an MRA with the United States were almost evenly split, with an 
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 by [the testing firm 
accreditation bodies] for the accreditation of testing laboratories for 
FCC equipment authorization programs.
    39. The Commission adopted the proposal to codify the above 
criteria for OET's determination of the acceptability of new laboratory 
accreditation bodies. Under these rules, the applicant will submit 
information addressing each of the four elements to OET for evaluation. 
Applicants will be able to choose how they show that they meet each of 
the elements, and OET was directed to use its existing resources--
including the KDB and public notice process--to provide additional 
guidance, clarification, and updates, as needed.
    40. In a slight change from the proposal, the adopted rule will not 
list specific organizations that operate recognition programs under 
ISO/IEC 17011 and instead includes a general

[[Page 33431]]

statement that recognition will be based on a peer review pursuant to 
an agreement found to be acceptable to the Commission. The Commission 
ultimately decided that the inclusion of specific organizations in the 
rules could inadvertently limit the flexibility of entities seeking 
recognition as an accreditation body or give the specific 
organization(s) a perceived advantage. Similarly, in response to NIST's 
suggestion that it clarify that its program only applies to domestic 
accrediting bodies, the Commission decided to remove the rule reference 
to the NIST program. The Commission will maintain a list of recognized 
accreditation bodies on its Web page to facilitate the prompt notice of 
new recognitions.
    41. As to NIST's suggestion that the rule include further specific 
elaboration on other supporting evidence, the Commission noted that the 
rule specifies only the key elements that OET will use in evaluating 
the competence of an accreditation body and it gave OET the flexibility 
to accept other supporting evidence on a case-by-case basis in order to 
accommodate evolving industry practices.
7. Test Site Validation
    42. Under the current rules, a measurement facility that is used 
for measuring radiated emissions from equipment subject to parts 15 and 
18 must meet the site validation requirements in ANSI C63.4-2001. While 
radiated emission measurements at frequencies above 1 GHz are required 
for many devices subject to parts 15 and 18 of the rules, ANSI C63.4-
2001 does not have specific site validation criteria for test 
facilities used for making radiated emissions in this frequency range. 
Rather, it only states that facilities determined to be suitable 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, without specific site validation criteria for the 
higher frequencies. Subsequent versions of the emission measurement 
standard, ANSI C63.4-2009 and ANSI C63.4-2014, both provide two options 
for test site validation for facilities used to make radiated emission 
measurements above 1 GHz, both of which include additional 
requirements. To be suitable for measurements in the frequency range 1 
GHz to 40 GHz the facility must utilize RF absorbing material covers 
the ground plane in such a manner that either of the following 
conditions are met: (1) The site validation criteria specified in the 
CISPR 16-1-4 (CISPR 16) standard is met; or (2) a minimum area of the 
ground plane is covered using RF absorbing material.
    43. In the NPRM, 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 
ANSI C63.4-2009. Additionally, if the measurement site will be used for 
measuring radiated emissions in the range of 1 GHz to 40 GHz, it must 
meet the site validation criterion specified in ANSI C63.4 that 
references CISPR 16. The Commission indicated that the additional 
requirements were intended to provide better accuracy and repeatability 
of measurements than simply covering a minimum area of its ground 
plane. The Commission further proposed that a laboratory must confirm 
compliance with the site validation criterion no less than once every 
three years.
    44. In the Order, the Commission required that test facilities that 
conduct radiated emission measurements above 1 GHz must meet the site 
validation requirements in ANSI C63.4-2014. The Commission found ANSI 
C63.4-2014 to be essentially the same as the 2009 version discussed in 
the NPRM (a specific set of validation criteria for test facilities 
that was missing in the 2001 version), and, noting that no parties had 
opposed ANSI C63's recommendation to we use the 2014 standard, 
determined that use of the 2014 version would avoid any confusion 
associated with using a version of the standard that is not the most 
current.
    45. On its face, the adoption of the revised ANSI C63.4 standard 
necessitates compliance with the CISPR 16 standard. The Commission 
acknowledged the costs of the upgrades to test facilities that would be 
necessary to meet the site validation requirements in CISPR 16, and 
decided to allow either alternative for site validation in ANSI C63.4-
2014 to be used to determine the suitability of a test facility to be 
used to make radiated emissions measurements above 1 GHz during a 
three-year transition period. After this time, test facilities used to 
make radiated emissions will be required to demonstrate compliance with 
the site validation criteria specified in CISPR 16. Because not all 
radiated emission measurement methods for licensed devices require the 
use of a test facility that meets the site validation requirements in 
ANSI C63.4-2014, the Commission revised to Sec.  2.948(d) to specify 
that the site validation requirements only apply for radiated emissions 
test methods that require the use of a validated test site.

Measurement Procedures

8. Part 15 Devices
    46. The Commission requires that most devices subject to part 15 
technical requirements be tested to demonstrate compliance with the 
measurement procedures in ANSI C63.4 before they can be imported into 
or marketed within the United States. Specifically, Sec.  15.31(a) of 
the rules states that the Commission will measure emissions from most 
intentional and unintentional radiators using the standard published by 
the American National Standard Institute Accredited Standards Committee 
C63[supreg]--Electromagnetic Compatibility (ANSI-ASC C63), 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) to 
determine compliance with the Part 15 technical requirements.
    47. The Commission has issued a number of public notices, 
interpretations and advisories on measurement standards to supplement 
the test procedures given in the ANSI C63.4 standard listed in the 
rules (i.e. ANSI C63.4-2003) to account for the growing number of 
intentional radiators and the resulting numbers of questions from test 
laboratories. Subsequently, ANSI-ASC C63 developed a new standard, ANSI 
C63.10-2009, for use in the measurement of intentional radiators in a 
wide range of frequency bands. This standard is essentially combines 
existing measurement procedures and associated Commission guidance for 
intentional radiators and does not add any new requirements for 
compliance testing. ANSI-ASC C63 also released a revised version of the 
ANSI C63.4 standard, ANSI C63.4-2014, to address unintentional 
radiators. Thus, ANSI C63.10 now contains the measurement procedures 
for intentional radiators, and ANSI C63.4 now contains the measurement 
procedures for unintentional radiators.
    48. Upon publication of the 2009 standards by ANSI-ASC C63, OET 
issued a Public Notice announcing that, until it could initiate a 
rulemaking proceeding to incorporate the new standards into the rules, 
compliance measurements may be made under either the then-new 2009 
standards or the 2003 standard currently in the rules. In the NPRM, the 
Commission proposed to update its rules to incorporate the latest 
standards--at that time, ANSI C63.10-2009 for intentional radiators and 
ANSI C63.4-2009 for unintentional radiators--into the rules. In keeping

[[Page 33432]]

with its previous policy with respect to ANSI C63.4, the Commission 
proposed to exclude the use of the sections in ANSI 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 absorbing 
clamp for radio noise power measurements; and relaxed limits for 
transient emissions. Subsequent to the release of the NPRM ANSI-ASC C63 
published updated versions of both standards, ANSI C63.4-2014 and ANSI 
C63.10-2013.
    49. In the NPRM the Commission asked several questions related to 
the use of the updated ANSI C63.4 standard. Specifically, it questioned 
whether the benefits of adopting the increased burdens associated with 
the new standard outweighed the associated costs. It also asked whether 
certain technical changes in the 2009 revision (e.g., a restriction on 
the use of hybrid antennas or the 2 dB rule) cause problems for 
manufacturers and/or test laboratories. Further, the Commission asked 
if the references to undated standards that are incorporated in the 
2009 revision could result in a mandate of compliance with 
subsequently-modified standards without the opportunity for comment or 
transition period. The Commission also asked whether the 
interpretations of C63.4-2009 and C63.10-2009 on ANSI's Web site be 
accepted by the Commission as valid means for compliance. Finally, the 
Commission asked whether it could address the above concerns by not 
incorporating certain sections of the 2009 versions of the standards 
into the rules, and, if so, which particular sections should not be 
incorporated.
    50. Finally, in the NPRM, the Commission recognized that work was 
underway to provide further updates to the standards, and sought 
comment on whether there were any significant differences between the 
2009 versions of the standards and the latest drafts, and whether any 
of the changes in these drafts would address our concerns. After 
release of the NPRM and completion of the pleading cycle, ANSI-ASC C63 
completed the process of adopting newer versions of both standards, and 
released ANSI C63.4-2014 and ANSI C63.10-2013.
    51. ANSI-ASC C63 initially provided comments supporting the 
adoption of ANSI C63.4-2009 and ANSI C63.10-2009, along with 
suggestions that address concerns raised by other commenters. In its 
subsequent ex parte filings, ANSI C63.4 requested that the Commission 
update the rules to cross-reference ANSI C63.10-2013 and ANSI C63.4-
2014.
    52. ANSI-ASC C63 claimed that ANSI C63.4-2014 improved on various 
aspects of the C63.4-2009 standard. Specifically, the newest version of 
the standard addresses: Hybrid antenna qualification procedure; removal 
of testing procedures for transmitters as they are now covered by ANSI 
C63.10-2013; application of standard in the United States and Canada; 
improvements to ``2 dB rule''; test setup details for tablet computers; 
test site validation interval guideline for radiated emissions above 1 
GHz; use of RF absorber for radiated emissions above 1 GHz; visual 
display procedures based on size of screen; and further clarification 
on radiated emissions above 1 GHz.
    53. ANSI-ASC C63 further stated that the ANSI C63.10-2013 standard 
further improved on various aspects of the C63.10-2009, and it noted 
changes relating to: Clarifications of instrumentation factors such as 
detector and antenna requirements; the use of spectrum analyzers; out-
of-band emission (OOBE) and band edge requirements; millimeter wave 
procedures, measurements below 30 MHz and above 1 GHz; new procedures 
for wireless devices using new technology (e.g., Digital Transmission 
Systems (DTS); Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) 
devices; FM transmitters in vehicles; and Inductive Loop devices.
    54. The Commission found that the improvements made in ANSI C63.4-
2014 and ANSI C63.10-2013 represented the best measurement procedures, 
and it therefore decided to incorporate references to ANSI C63.4-2014 
and ANSI C63.10-2013 into the rules as the measurement procedures for 
determining the compliance of unintentional and intentional radiators, 
respectively. The Commission concluded that the newest editions of the 
standards were adopted with the input of manufacturers, trade groups, 
and other academic bodies, and reflects the current state-of-the-art 
design and manufacturing processes. The new standards also provide a 
meaningful distinction between intentional and unintentional radiators, 
which will to ensure that noncompliant devices do not enter the 
marketplace where they may be difficult to eliminate. While the 
Commission acknowledged that compliance costs are a normal and expected 
part of a standards-driven regime where the standards are periodically 
updated, it noted that by implementing the 2013 and 2014 editions it 
can mitigate any costs that would have been associated with meeting the 
2009 editions as an interim step, and recognized that there would be 
costs associated with not acting to implement the latest standards.
    55. The Commission asserted its continued belief that there is 
insufficient evidence that rod antennas, artificial hands or absorber 
clamps produce accurate, repeatable measurements, and that short-
duration emissions can produce as much nuisance to radio communications 
as continuous emissions, and decided to exclude ANSI C63.4-2014 
sections that allow for these methods. The Commission also provided a 
transition period for ANSI C63.4 that will end one year from the 
effective date of the rules. During this time which parties may 
continue to comply with either ANSI C63.4-2003, ANSI C63.4-2009 
(consistent with current practice) or with the new ANSI C63.4-2014. 
After the transition period date only compliance with ANSI C63.4-2014 
will be accepted. The Commission also decided to apply a one-year 
transition period for use of the new edition of ANSI C63.10-2013.
    56. The Commission also addressed numerous comments that addressed 
engineering and administrative issues implicated by the adoption of the 
new standards. Several commenters requested that the Commission not 
rule out future consideration of the use of CISPR 22 standard for 
measuring equipment subject to Part 15, as an alternative to ANSI 
C63.4-2009. In addition, HP proposed referencing CISPR 32 for test 
methods up to 6 GHz.
    57. In the NPRM the Commission noted some differences between CISPR 
22 requirements and those in ANSI C63.4-2009 and concluded that the 
ANSI standard was more appropriate for its purposes. Based on the 
record, the Commission to remains unconvinced that the measurement 
procedures in CISPR 22 for unintentional radiators would be an 
appropriate alternative to the ANSI-ASC standards. The Commission 
further noted that, CISPR 22 had been superseded by CISPR 32 and, in 
any event neither standard addresses all types of unintentional 
radiators covered in part 15.
    58. Several commenters addressed the so-called ``2 dB rule,'' a 
method used to limit the amount of testing needed by determining the 
worst-case configuration. In this regard, ANSI-ASC C63 stated it had 
made additional improvements to the ``2 dB rule'' in ANSI C63.4-2014. 
The Commission found that the ANSI C63.4-2014 changes improved on ANSI 
C63.4-2009 and should address the record comments. Nevertheless, to 
reduce potential burdens on equipment

[[Page 33433]]

manufactures and as proposed by HP, the Commission decided to continue 
accepting the use of the ``2 dB'' method in ANSI C63.4-2003 for 
demonstrating compliance with the requirement in Sec.  15.31(i) until 
it adopts further revisions to the standard.
    59. ACIL and dB Technology discussed the proper arrangement of the 
measurement antenna relative to the equipment under test (EUT) when 
performing radiated emissions testing above 1 GHz. The Commission 
offered guidance for such testing: Measurement procedures for radiated 
emissions measurements above 1 GHz have required that the measurement 
antenna be pointed at the source of the radiated emission from the EUT 
in a manner that ensures that the measurement is maximized. This can be 
achieved using different methods.
    60. The Commission received several comments complaining that ANSI 
C63.4-2009 excludes hybrid antennas for making radiated emissions 
measurements. ANSI-ASC C63 stated that ANSI C63.4-2014 has addressed 
concerns with the use of hybrid antennas, and it recommended that the 
Commission allow the use of hybrid antennas for testing of products 
pursuant to the new procedures in ANSI C63.4-2014 that detail how they 
are to be used. The Commission agreed and found that the ANSI C63.4-
2014 standard is an improvement over the 2009 standard in that it 
provides a means for the use of hybrid antennas that is appropriate and 
reliable for providing accurate measurements.
    61. The Commission recognized that standards development 
organizations often provide informative explanations and 
interpretations of the standards that they develop, offering helpful 
insight to the rationale behind the development of a standard. While it 
will continue to consider them in response to requests for guidance or 
clarification, the Commission clarified that it will not incorporate 
the interpretations of standards organizations automatically into its 
rules, as some commenters had assumed. The Commission asserted its 
discretion to use its own judgment in interpreting standards, even as 
it is informed by the interpretation(s) of the standards organization. 
In addition, the Commission would not adopt the interpretation of a 
standards organization in a case in which doing so would effectively 
change the Commission's rules without the opportunity for comment. 
Moreover, the Commission pointed out that ANSI-ASC C63 comments 
indicated that it does not require parties to follow such explanations 
and interpretations to be considered ``compliant'' with a standard, 
until such time that they are included in the normative part of the 
standard via full approval process by the ANSI-ASC C63 committee. The 
Commission also disagreed with commenters who asserted that it should 
not adopt the new ANSI standards because they cross-references to other 
undated standards. These commenters were concerned that this practice 
could inadvertently result in new compliance requirements by 
introducing revised editions without the opportunity for comment or 
defined transition periods. The Commission recognized that the use of 
undated references could be unclear to users--particularly when there 
are several versions of the referenced standard. However, the 
Commission believed that requiring that only dated standards be cross-
referenced would not always result in certainty regarding compliance 
requirements. ANSI-ASC C63 explained that it decided to use undated 
references to other ANSI-ASC C63 standards since it carefully reviews 
the effect of any revisions as part of the standards development 
process. The Commission accepted this convention, acknowledging that, 
under this approach, there could be a revision to a standard cross-
referenced referenced in ANSI C63.4 or ANSI C63.10. When this occurs, 
OET will provide guidance via the KDB on the use of updated references 
in ANSI C63.4 and ANSI C63.10. If the change that would result in a 
substantive change in requirements, the revised cross-referenced 
standard would not take effect until the Commission or OET on delegated 
authority completes a rulemaking adopting that change.
    62. Finally, the Commission addressed a specific and narrow concern 
raised by Inovonics which stated that, while its products meet the 
frequency hopping requirements for unlicensed devices in Sec.  
15.247(a)(1)(i) using the bandwidth measurement procedure in ANSI 
C63.4-2003, it would be unable to meet the frequency hopping 
requirement using the proposed bandwidth measurement procedure in ANSI 
C63.10-2009 due to difference in resolution bandwidth setting 
techniques when measuring occupied bandwidth. Inovonics asserted that 
redesigning future products to meet the frequency hopping requirement 
would impose burdens on consumers of large-scale unlicensed systems who 
would no longer be able to modify their existing systems without 
substantially replacing all of their equipment. It suggested that, if 
the Commission adopts a revised standard, it include an extensive 
grandfathering period for testing equipment under the existing 
standard.
    63. The Commission agreed with Inovonics argument that application 
of the 2009 standard would result in Inovonics' existing consumers 
having to choose whether to replace entire systems or forego the 
benefits of updating equipment or expanding their existing 
installations, and that application of the standard would be so unduly 
burdensome as to run counter to the public interest. In the evaluation 
of devices from Inovonics that are designed to be compatible with 
Inovonics equipment that has already been authorized, the Commission 
will to continue to accept the bandwidth measurement procedure in ANSI 
C63.4-2003 for purposes of demonstrating that products meet the 
frequency hopping requirements for its unlicensed devices in Sec.  
15.247(a)(1)(i). Inovonics must phase out its use of the 2003 standard 
after December 31, 2020--the date it suggests in its comments--or when 
the Commission adopts further revisions to the standard, whichever 
occurs first. The Commission found that this transition would allow 
Inovonics sufficient time to prepare its customers for replacing their 
systems as it plans equipment designs that can be tested to comply with 
the updated standard. Because it will still be subject to the objective 
measurement procedure embodied in the 2003 standard, the Commission 
affirmed its confidence that Inovonics' equipment will comport with the 
appropriate part 15 technical requirements and not create a risk of 
interference.
9. Updating Measurement Procedures
    64. Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's rules incorporate various 
industry measurement standards that have been developed by different 
industry groups, subject to periodic revision. The Commission has 
delegated authority to the Chief of OET to make editorial non-
substantive changes to the rules pertaining to parts 2, 5, 15, and 18 
of the rules, including references to updated standards that do not 
involve substantive changes. Non-editorial revisions to the rules 
require action by the full Commission and all rule changes to reference 
updated standards have been effected by Commission action. In the NPRM, 
the Commission proposed to explicitly allow OET to update references to 
industry standards that are already in the rules in parts 2, 5, 15 and 
18 of the rules, provided that the changes do not raise major 
compliance issues.

[[Page 33434]]

    65. The Commission adopted its NPRM proposal to give the Chief of 
OET delegated authority to engage in limited rulemaking action in order 
to modify parts 2, 5, 15, and 18 of rules to reference updated versions 
of standards that are already referenced in the rules. When it updates 
these references, in order to effectuate any degree of change to the 
substantive obligations of any party subject to FCC regulation, OET 
must follow Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements by 
publishing a notice in the Federal Register, providing sufficient 
opportunity for public comment, and considering the record compiled in 
the proceeding prior to adopting any substantive update to the 
standards. OET will determine whether there is a need for a transition 
period, and the appropriate length of any such transition, based on the 
comments filed in response to each public notice. In cases where 
parties provide convincing evidence that the proposed use of an updated 
standard would, in fact, raise major compliance issues, the Commission 
directed OET to refer the matter for review and decision by the 
Commission.
10. Other Issues
    66. The Commission amended 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. The photographs or 
diagrams must show enough detail to confirm other information contained 
in the test report, and any photographs must clearly show the test 
configuration used. The Commission stated that the changes will make 
the Certification procedure consistent with the verification and DoC 
procedures, which require photographs or diagrams, and will allow it to 
determine whether a test laboratory or TCB tested equipment in 
accordance with the applicable measurement procedures. The Commission 
determined that the cost of this requirement would negligible because 
it requires a test laboratory or TCB to take a minimal number of 
additional photographs during testing or provide some relatively simple 
diagrams and include those with the test report submitted with the 
application for Certification. Additionally, the Commission found no 
need to specify in Sec.  2.1033 that photographs or diagrams may be in 
electronic format since it accepts only electronic filings from TCBs 
and because codifying such aspects of the filing procedure could limit 
OET's flexibility in modifying them later. Additionally, the Commission 
decided to not adopt Bay Area Compliance's suggestion regarding a time/
date stamp requirement since such data could be easily altered in 
conjunction with a fraudulent filing.
    67. Obsolete rules. The Commission removed Sec.  15.109(g)(4) 
because it references a rule provision that was deleted in 2002. The 
Commission also deleted the note in Sec.  15.31(a)(3) as unnecessary.

Transition Period

    68. To allow time for currently operating laboratories to become 
fully accredited and comply with the new ANSI C63.4 site validation 
criteria above 1 GHz, the Commission proposed adopted the transition 
periods set forth in the NPRM and applied them to the versions of the 
standards it adopted. Testing laboratories currently listed by the 
Commission under the Sec.  2.948 process will remain recognized for the 
sooner of one year from the effective date of the rules adopted herein 
or until the date that their listing expires. As of the effective date 
of the rules, new laboratories must be accredited in order to be added 
to the Commission's list of recognized testing laboratories and the 
Commission will not recognize new 2.948-listed laboratories. Testing 
laboratories whose 2.948-listings expire within one year of the 
effective date of the rules may renew their listing but the renewal 
will be valid only until one year after the effective date of the 
rules. Applicants for grants of Certification using recognized 2.948-
listed testing laboratories that test devices up until one year after 
the effective date of the rules must submit those test reports for 
grants of Certification within 90 days of the end of the one-year 
transition period (i.e., within approximately 15 months of the 
effective date of the rules). The transition to the new site validation 
criteria will require testing laboratories to demonstrate compliance 
with the site validation criteria in ANSI C63.4-2014 clause 5.5.1 a) 
(CISPR 16-1-4), no later than three years after the effective date of 
the rules.

Other Matters

    69. The docket included a Petition for Rulemaking filed by James E. 
Whedbee that proposed a new rule stating that a Commission license 
holder may use devices authorized for use under our part 15 rules and 
that such devices would not require a separate equipment authorization. 
Since the Commission currently does not place any restrictions on the 
use of part 15 devices by a holder of any other Commission license 
holder as long as the device is used within its authorized parameters, 
the Commission denied the petition as moot. To the extent that the 
petitioner intended to propose other alterations to our practice or 
procedures, the Commission found that the petition did not state what 
the proposed changes would do or why they are needed, and therefore 
failed to provide sufficient reason to justify the institution of a 
rulemaking proceeding.

Incorporation by Reference

    70. The OFR recently revised the regulations to require that 
agencies must discuss in the preamble of the rule ways that the 
materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available 
to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the 
materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the 
material. 1 CFR 51.5(b). In accordance with OFR's requirements, the 
discussion in this section summarizes ANSI, CISPR and ISO/IEC 
standards. Copies of the standards are also available for purchase from 
the standards development organizations: The IEEE standards may be 
purchased from the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers 
(IEEE), 3916 Ranchero Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, 1-800-699-9277, 
http://www.techstreet.com/ieee; and the ANSI, ISO and IEC standards are 
available for purchase from American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-
4900, http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/IEEE.
    (1) ANSI C63.4-2014: ``American National Standard for Methods of 
Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and 
Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz,'' ANSI approved 
June 13, 2014:
     Except sections 4.5.3, 4.6, 6.2.13, 8.2.2, 9, and 13, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  2.950(h), 15.31(a)(4), and 15.38(b)(1).
     Sections 5.4.4 through 5.5 IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
2.910(c)(1), 2.948(d), and 2.950(f).
    This standard, ANSI C63.4-2014, contains methods, instrumentation, 
and facilities for measurement of radio-frequency (RF) signals and 
noise emitted from electrical and electronic devices in the frequency 
range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz, as usable, for example, for compliance 
testing to U.S. (47 CFR part 15) and Industry Canada (ICES-003) 
regulatory requirements.
    (2) ANSI C63.10-2013, ``American National Standard of Procedures 
for Compliance Testing of Unlicensed Wireless Devices,'' ANSI approved 
June 27, 2013, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  2.910(c)(3), 2.950(g), 
15.31(a)(3), and 15.38(b)(4).

[[Page 33435]]

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

IEC

    (1) CISPR 16-1-4:2010-04: ``Specification for radio disturbance and 
immunity measuring apparatus and methods--Part 1-4: Radio disturbance 
and immunity measuring apparatus--Antennas and test sites for radiated 
disturbance measurements'' Edition 3.0, 2010-04, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  2.910(b)(1), 2.948(d), and 2.950(f).
    This standard, CISPR 16-1-4:2010-04, specifies the characteristics 
and performance of equipment for the measurement of radiated 
disturbances in the frequency range 9 kHz to 18 GHz. Specifications for 
antennas and test sites are included. The requirements of this 
publication apply at all frequencies and for all levels of radiated 
disturbances within the CISPR indicating range of the measuring 
equipment.

ISO

    (1) ISO/IEC 17011:2004(E), ``Conformity assessment--General 
requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment 
bodies,'' First Edition, 2004-09-01, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
2.910(d)(1), 2.948(e), 2.949(b)(1), 2.950(c) and (d), 2.960(b), and 
(c)(1), and 68.160(c)(1).
    This standard, ISO/IEC 17011:2004(E), specifies general 
requirements for accreditation bodies assessing and accrediting 
conformity assessment bodies (CABs). It is also appropriate as a 
requirements document for the peer evaluation process for mutual 
recognition arrangements between accreditation bodies.
    (2) ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), ``General requirements for the 
competence of testing and calibration laboratories,'' Second Edition, 
2005-05-15 IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  2.910(d)(2), 2.948(e), 
2.949(b)(2), 2.962(c)(3), (c)(4), and (d)(1), and 68.162(c)(3), (c)(4), 
and (d)(1).
    This standard, ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), specifies the general 
requirements for the competence to carry out tests and/or calibrations, 
including sampling. It covers testing and calibration performed using 
standard methods, non-standard methods, and laboratory-developed 
methods.
    (3) ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E), ``Conformity assessment--Requirements 
for bodies certifying products, processes and services,'' First 
Edition, 2012-09-15, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  2.910(d)(3), 2.950(b), 
2.960(b), 2.962(b)(1), (c)(1), (c)(4), (d)(1), (d)(3), (f)(2), and 
(g)(1), 68.160 (b) and 68.162(b)(1), (c)(1), (c)(4), (d)(1), (d)(2), 
(f)(2), and (g)(2).
    This standard, ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E), specifies requirements, the 
observance of which is intended to ensure that certification bodies 
operate certification schemes in a competent, consistent and impartial 
manner, thereby facilitating the recognition of such bodies and the 
acceptance of certified products, processes and services on a national 
and international basis and so furthering international trade. This 
International Standard can be used as a criteria document for 
accreditation or peer assessment or designation by governmental 
authorities, scheme owners and others.
    (4) ISO/IEC Guide 58:1993 ``Calibration and testing laboratory 
accreditation systems--General requirements for operation and 
recognition'', First Edition 1993 IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
2.910(d)(4), and 2.950(d).
    This document, ISO/IEC Guide 58:1993, sets out the general 
requirements for the operation of a system for accreditation of 
calibration and/or testing laboratories so that the accreditations 
granted and the services covered by the accreditations may be 
recognized at a national or international level as competent and 
reliable.
    (5) ISO/IEC Guide 61:1996 ``General requirements for assessment and 
accreditation of certification/registration bodies'', First Edition 
1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  2.910(d)(5), and 2.950(c).
    This document, ISO/IEC Guide 61:1996, specifies general 
requirements for a body to follow if it is to be recognized at a 
national or international level as competent and reliable in assessing 
and subsequently accrediting certification bodies or registration 
bodies. Conformity to the requirements of this Guide will promote 
equivalence of national systems and facilitate agreements on mutual 
recognition of accreditations between such bodies.
    (6) ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996, ``General requirements for bodies 
operating product certification systems,'' First Edition 1996, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  2.910(d)(6), and 2.950(b).
    This document, ISO/IEC Guide 65: 1996, specifies requirements, the 
observance of which is intended to ensure that certification bodies 
operate third-party certification systems in a consistent and reliable 
manner, thereby facilitating their acceptance on a national and 
international basis and so furthering international trade.

Procedural Matters

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    71. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA),\1\ an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking (Authorization of 
Radiofrequency Equipment NPRM) in ET Docket No. 13-44.\2\ The 
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, 
including comment on the IRFA. Those comments are discussed in the 
following text. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(FRFA) conforms to the RFA.\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), 
and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Public Law 111-240, 124 
Stat. 2504 (2010).
    \2\ See Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of the Commission's 
Rules to regarding Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment and 
Amendment of Part 68 regarding Approval of Terminal Equipment by 
Telecommunications Certification Bodies, NPRM of Proposed 
Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 13-44, RM-11673, 28 FCC Rcd 1606 (2013) 
(NPRM).
    \3\ See 5 U.S.C. 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for, and Objective of, the Report and Order
    72. In the Report and Order, the Commission took actions to update 
its radiofrequency (RF) equipment authorization program to build on the 
success realized by our use of Commission-recognized Telecommunication 
Certification Bodies (TCBs). The adopted rules will facilitate the 
continued rapid introduction of new and innovative products to the 
market while maintaining our ability to ensure that these products do 
not cause harmful interference with each other or with other 
communications devices and services.
    Specifically, in this Report and Order the Commission:
     Discontinued FCC processing of any applications for 
equipment Certification of RF equipment;
     Permitted TCBs to process and grant all applications for 
Certification;
     Codified a pre-grant approval procedure that TCBs must 
currently follow when certifying equipment based on new technology that 
requires consultation with the FCC;
     Clarified a TCB's responsibilities in performing post-
market surveillance of products it has approved;
     Specified steps for addressing instances of deficient TCB 
performance,

[[Page 33436]]

including appropriate sanctions for deficiencies that do not warrant 
rescinding a TCB's authority to issue a grant of Certification;
     Modified the rules to reference current 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;
     Required accreditation of all laboratories that test 
equipment subject to any of the certification procedures under part 2 
of the Commission's rules and codified a procedure through which the 
Commission currently recognizes new laboratory accreditation bodies;
     Updated references to industry measurement procedures in 
the Commission's rules; and provided greater flexibility under the 
Office of Engineering and Technology's (OET) existing delegated 
authority to enable it to address minor technical issues that may be 
raised when updating to the latest versions of industry standards that 
are referenced in parts 2, 5, 15, and 18 of the Commission's rules.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA
    73. One commenter addressed the conclusions that were reached in 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) regarding the 
economic impact that the proposed rules would have on small entities. 
That commenter, dB Technology, asserted that the IRFA failed to account 
for the negative effects of adopting the proposal to require that all 
laboratories that perform certification testing be accredited.\4\ 
Specifically, dB Technology stated that the ``. . . cost overhead 
associated with `accreditation' which has a much more significant 
impact on smaller test labs . . . may result in some small test labs no 
longer being able to offer services to local small entities.'' As a 
result, dB Technology concluded that there could be a ``. . . reduction 
in the number of competing test labs and increased costs for 
manufacturers.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See dB Technology ``small business impact'' comments filed 
March 22, 2013. dB Technology refers to itself as ``an independent 
EMC/Radio Test Site located in the United Kingdom,'' whose test 
facilities are `` `listed' with the FCC but not `accredited.' ''
    \5\ dB Technology also suggested that the IRFA should have 
considered the ``positive impact'' of relaxing other Commission 
equipment authorization procedures. However, the procedures it 
mentioned were not the direct subjects of this proceeding and these 
comments will not be discussed further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    74. In the Report and Order in this proceeding, the Commission 
adopted the requirement that all laboratories that perform 
Certification testing be accredited. It did so on the basis that 
requiring testing laboratory accreditation is an important adjunct to 
our decision to allow TCBs to certify all RF equipment, and because the 
requirement will provide a higher degree of confidence that equipment 
testing done in support of Certification applications is conducted in 
accordance with the applicable standards. To the extent that dB 
technologies is suggesting that the Commission take an alternate 
approach, such as continuing to allow for unaccredited laboratories, it 
was considered but rejected on the basis that it would not accomplish 
the objectives of the proceeding. It is extremely important that 
equipment be properly evaluated prior to being released into the 
marketplace (where it may be difficult or impossible to retrieve). Not 
requiring accreditation, or only applying such a requirement to certain 
types of laboratories, would present unacceptable risks to the 
integrity and success of our equipment authorization program. It would 
also increase the potential for the imposition of extraordinary costs 
(both costs associated with the identification and recall of 
noncompliant products by manufacturers, and costs associated with 
interference by noncompliant devices that could affect a larger group 
of users). For these reasons, the Commission adopted the accreditation 
rule based on the proposals in the NPRM and its accompanying IRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration
    75. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission 
was required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a 
detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result 
of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in 
response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply
    76. 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.\6\ The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act.\7\ 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 
SBA.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. at 603(b)(3).
    \7\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the 
RFA, 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 U.S.C. 601(3).
    \8\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    77. 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.'' \9\ 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.\10\ Thus, under that 
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The NAICS Code for this service 334220. See 13 CFR 121/201. 
See also http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=300&-ds_name=EC0731SG2&-_lang=en.
    \10\ See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=4500&-ds_name=EC0731SG3&-_lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
    78. The Commission's rules require that equipment be authorized in 
accordance with one of three procedures specified in Subpart J of part 
2 of the rules described below (with certain

[[Page 33437]]

limited exceptions).\11\ These requirements not only minimize the 
potential for harmful interference, but also ensure that the equipment 
complies with our rules that address other policy objectives--such as 
RF human exposure limits and hearing aid compatibility (HAC) with 
wireless handsets. The specific provisions of the three procedures 
apply to various types of devices based on their relative likelihood of 
harmful interference and the significance of the effects of such 
interference from the particular device at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 47 CFR part 2, subpart J, 2.901, et seq. Some devices 
are exempt from the equipment authorization requirements, such as 
unlicensed digital devices used exclusively in transportation 
vehicles, utility or industrial plants, test equipment, appliances 
and medical devices. See 47 CFR 15.103. In addition, most radio 
receivers that tune only outside the frequency range of 30-960 MHz 
are exempt from equipment authorization requirements. See 47 CFR 
15.101(b). Operation of these exempt digital devices and radio 
receivers is subject to the condition that the devices may not cause 
harmful interference to authorized services. See 47 CFR 15.5(b). 
Additionally, some devices are exempt from equipment authorization 
requirements by statute, such as equipment intended solely for 
export or marketed exclusively for use by the Federal Government. 
See 47 U.S.C. 302a(c) and 47 CFR 2.807.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certification, the most rigorous process for devices with the 
greatest potential to cause harmful interference, is an equipment 
authorization issued by the Commission or grant of Certification by a 
recognized TCB based on an application and test data submitted by the 
responsible party (e.g., the manufacturer or importer).\12\ The testing 
is done by a testing laboratory listed by the Commission as approved 
for such work and the Commission or a TCB examines the test procedures 
and data to determine whether the testing followed appropriate 
protocols and the data demonstrates technical and operational 
compliance with all pertinent rules. Technical parameters and other 
descriptive information for all certified equipment submitted in an 
application for Certification are published in a Commission-maintained 
public database, regardless of whether it is approved by the Commission 
or a TCB.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 47 CFR 2.907.
    \13\ See http://www.fcc.gov/eas/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Declaration of Conformity (DoC) is a procedure that requires the 
party responsible for compliance to use an accredited testing 
laboratory that follows established measurement protocols to ensure 
that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical 
standards.\14\ The responsible party is not required to file an 
equipment authorization application with the Commission or a TCB, and 
equipment authorized under the DoC procedure is not listed in any 
Commission database. However, the responsible party must provide a test 
report and other information demonstrating compliance with the rules 
upon request by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 47 CFR 2.906. The party responsible for compliance is 
defined in 47 CFR 2.909.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Verification is a procedure that requires the party responsible for 
compliance to rely on measurements that it or another party makes on 
its behalf to ensure that the equipment complies with the appropriate 
technical standards.\15\ The responsible party is not required to use 
an accredited testing laboratory. It is not required to file an 
application with the Commission or a TCB, and equipment authorized 
under the verification procedure is not listed in any Commission 
database. However, the responsible party must provide a test report and 
other information demonstrating compliance with the rules upon request 
by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 47 CFR 2.909(b) and 2.953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    79. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') in this 
proceeding, the Commission proposed certain changes to ensure its part 
2 equipment authorization processes continue to operate efficiently and 
effectively.\16\ Specifically, the Commission proposed to clarify the 
obligations of TCBs and to strengthen the Commission's oversight of the 
TCB's. The Commission also proposed to require accreditation for all 
labs performing equipment authorization compliance tests. The 
Commission also proposed adopting updates to the measurement procedures 
used to determine RF equipment compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of the Commission's 
Rules regarding Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment and 
Amendment of Part 68 regarding Approval of Terminal Equipment by 
Telecommunications Certification Bodies, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 13-44, 28 FCC Rcd 1606 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    80. The Commission adopted its proposals specifying how applicants 
will file with TCBs and how TCBs will file with the Commission, and 
will required that the information provided to the Commission shall be 
submitted electronically through the Commission's EAS.
    81. The Commission will stop accepting applications for grant of 
Certification as of the effective date of the Report and Order and will 
modify Sec.  1.1103 of the rules to remove the equipment authorization 
services sections related to Certification as all of the processes 
under the Certification section will no longer be handled by the 
Commission, and no fee will be charged by the Commission when a TCB 
issues a grant of Certification. Applications received prior to the 
effective date will be reviewed following the current review procedures 
and approved if compliant with all requirements. Finally, the 
Commission also adopted the proposed TCB process changes and amended 
the various sections of part 2 that required updating to reflect the 
TCB role in the Certification process, as modified herein.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    82. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
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 or reporting requirements under the rule for 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 small 
entities.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    83. The Commission adopted the proposed modifications to the 
administrative requirements for test laboratories and TCBs on the 
belief that the changes will make the equipment authorization program 
more efficient and effective, thus benefiting small entities. 
Specifically, 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, the Commission will 
also 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. It is expected that these changes will 
reduce the time required for manufacturers to obtain equipment 
approval.
    84. The Commission also adopted its proposals to require 
accreditation of test laboratories that perform certification testing 
and establish additional measures to address TCB performance in order 
to 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

[[Page 33438]]

playing field for all manufacturers, both large and small.
    Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Report 
and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act.\18\ In addition, the Commission will send a 
copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    85. This Report and Order contains no new information collection 
requirements, only non-substantive modifications.

Congressional Review Act

    86. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to 
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ordering Clauses

    87. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 301, 302, 303(f), 303(g), 
303(r), 307(e) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157(a), 301, 302a, 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 
307(e), and 332, this Report and Order is adopted.
    88. The rules and requirements adopted in this Report and Order 
will be effective July 13, 2015.
    89. Pursuant to the authority of Section 5(c) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 155(c), the Commission delegate 
authority to the Office of Engineering and Technology as set forth 
herein.
    90. The Petition for Rulemaking filed by James E. Whedbee is 
denied.
    91. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and 
Order, including the Final Regulatory Certification, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    92. Pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 
303 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j) and 
303, that should no petitions for reconsideration or applications for 
review be timely filed, this proceeding is terminated and ET Docket No. 
13-44 is closed.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 0

    Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

47 CFR Part 2

    Communications equipment, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

47 CFR Part 15

    Communications equipment, Incorporation by reference, Radio, and 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

47 CFR Part 68

    Communications equipment, Incorporation by reference, and Reporting 
and recordkeeping.

Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 1, 2, 15 and 68 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) Notice 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).
    (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 
rules in parts 2, 5, 15, or 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.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 0.408 is amended by revising the entry for ``3060-0636'' in 
paragraph (b) to read as follows.


Sec.  0.408  OMB control numbers and expiration dates assigned pursuant 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

* * * * *
    (b) Display.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 FCC Form number or 47 CFR section or part,
               OMB Control No.                     docket number or title identifying the        OMB Expiration
                                                                 collection                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
3060-0636....................................  Secs. 2.906, 2.909, 2.1071, 2.1075, 2.1077,              05/31/15
                                                and 15.37.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 33439]]

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452 
and 1455.

0
5. Section 1.1103 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1103  Schedule of charges for equipment approval, experimental 
radio services (or service).

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's 
electronic filing and payment system ``Fee Filer'' (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: 
Federal Communications Commission, OET Services, P.O. Box 979095, St. 
Louis, MO 63197-9000.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Service
------------------------------------------         FCC form No.             Fee           Payment type code
      Equipment approval service(s)                                        amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Advance Approval of Subscription TV     Corres & 159................  $4,180.00  EIS
 Systems.
    a. Request for Confidentiality For     Corres & 159................     195.00  EBS
     Advance Approval of Subscription TV
     Systems.
2. Assignment of Grantee Code:
    a. For all Application Types, except   Electronic Assignment & Form      65.00  EAG
     Subscription TV (Electronic Filing     159 or Optional Electronic
     Only--Optional Electronic Payment).    Payment.
3. Experimental Radio Service(s):
    a. New Station Authorization.........  442 & 159...................      65.00  EAE
    b. Modification of Authorization.....  442 & 159...................      65.00  EAE
    c. Renewal of Station Authorization..  405 & 159...................      65.00  EAE
    d. Assignment of License or Transfer   702 & 159 or................      65.00  EAE
     of Control.
                                           703 & 159...................      65.00  EAE
    e. Special Temporary Authority.......  Corres & 159................      65.00  EAE
f. Additional fee required for any of the  Corres & 159................      65.00  EAE
 above applications that request
 withholding from public inspection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

0
6. 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
7. Section 2.901 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.901  Basis and purpose.

    (a) In order to carry out its responsibilities under the 
Communications Act and the various treaties and international 
regulations, and in order to promote efficient use of the radio 
spectrum, the Commission has developed technical standards for radio 
frequency equipment and parts or components thereof. The technical 
standards applicable to individual types of equipment are found in that 
part of the rules governing the service wherein the equipment is to be 
operated. In addition to the technical standards provided, the rules 
governing the service may require that such equipment be verified by 
the manufacturer or importer, be authorized under a Declaration of 
Conformity, or receive a grant of Certification from a 
Telecommunication Certification Body.
    (b) Sections 2.902 through 2.1077 describe the verification 
procedure, the procedure for a Declaration of Conformity, and the 
procedures to be followed in obtaining certification and the conditions 
attendant to such a grant.

0
8. 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 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
9. Section 2.907 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  2.907  Certification.

    (a) Certification is an equipment authorization approved by the 
Commission or issued by a Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) 
and authorized under the authority of the Commission, based on 
representations and test data submitted by the applicant.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 2.909 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  2.909  Responsible party.

* * * * *
    (a) In the case of equipment which requires the issuance of a grant 
of certification, the party to whom that grant of certification is 
issued (the grantee). If the radio frequency equipment is modified by 
any party other than the grantee and that party is not working under 
the authorization of the grantee pursuant to Sec.  2.929(b), the party 
performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the 
product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in 
this chapter.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 2.910 is added before the undesignated center heading 
``Application Procedures for Equipment Authorizations'' 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. All approved 
material is 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 is available from the 
sources below. It is also available for inspection 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: 
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

[[Page 33440]]

    (b) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC Central 
Office, 3, rue de Varembe, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, Email: 
[email protected], www.iec.ch.
    (1) CISPR 16-1-4:2010-04: ``Specification for radio disturbance and 
immunity measuring apparatus and methods--Part 1-4: Radio disturbance 
and immunity measuring apparatus--Antennas and test sites for radiated 
disturbance measurements'', Edition 3.0, 2010-04, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  2.948(d) and 2.950(f).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), 3916 
Ranchero Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, 1-800-699-9277, http://www.techstreet.com/ieee; (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) ANSI C63.4-2014: ``American National Standard for Methods of 
Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and 
Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz,'' ANSI approved 
June 13, 2014, IBR approved for Sec.  2.950(h) and:
    (i) Sections 5.4.4 through 5.5, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
2.948(d) and 2.950(f); and
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) ANSI C63.10-2013, ``American National Standard of Procedures 
for Compliance Testing of Unlicensed Wireless Devices,'' ANSI approved 
June 27, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  2.950(g).
    (d) 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: [email protected]. 
(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(E), ``Conformity assessment--General 
requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment 
bodies,'' First Edition, 2004-09-01, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
2.948(e), 2.949(b), 2.950(c) and (d), and 2.960(c).
    (2) ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), ``General requirements for the 
competence of testing and calibration laboratories,'' Section Edition, 
2005-05-15, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  2.948(e), 2.949(b), 2.962(c) 
and (d).
    (3) ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E), ``Conformity assessment--Requirements 
for bodies certifying products, processes and services,'' First 
Edition, 2012-09-15, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  2.950(b), 2.960(b), 
2.962(b), (c), (d), (f), and (g).
    (4) ISO/IEC Guide 58:1993(E), ``Calibration and testing laboratory 
accreditation systems--General requirements for operation and 
recognition'', First Edition 1993, IBR approved for Sec.  2.950(d).
    (5) ISO/IEC Guide 61:1996(E), ``General requirements for assessment 
and accreditation of certification/registration bodies'', First Edition 
1996, IBR approved for Sec.  2.950(c).
    (6) ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996(E), ``General requirements for bodies 
operating product certification systems,'' First Edition 1996, IBR 
approved for Sec.  2.950(b).

0
12. 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 by 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 or TCB may require the person signing the test 
data to submit a statement showing that they are qualified to make or 
supervise the required measurements.
    (f) 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
13. Section 2.913 is removed.

0
14. Section 2.915 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text and adding paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  2.915  Grant of application.

    (a) A Commission recognized TCB will grant an application for 
certification if it finds from an examination of the application and 
supporting data, or other matter which it may officially notice, that:
* * * * *
    (d) Grants will be effective from the date of publication on the 
Commission Web site and shall show any special condition(s) attaching 
to the grant. The official copy of the grant shall be maintained on the 
Commission Web site.
    (e) The grant shall identify the approving TCB and the Commission 
as the issuing authority.

[[Page 33441]]

    (f) In cases of a dispute the Commission will be the final arbiter.

0
15. Section 2.917 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  2.917  Dismissal of application.

* * * * *
    (c) If an applicant is requested to file additional documents or 
information and fails to submit the requested material within the 
specified time period, the application may be dismissed.

0
16. Section 2.924 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.924  Marketing of electrically identical equipment having 
multiple trade names and models or type numbers under the same FCC 
Identifier.

    The grantee of an equipment authorization may market devices having 
different model/type numbers or trade names without additional 
authorization, provided that such devices are electrically identical 
and the equipment bears an FCC Identifier validated by a grant of 
certification. A device will be considered to be electrically identical 
if no changes are made to the authorized device, or if the changes made 
to the device would be treated as class I permissive changes within the 
scope of Sec.  2.1043(b)(1). Changes to the model number or trade name 
by anyone other than the grantee, or under the authorization of the 
grantee, shall be performed following the procedures in Sec.  2.933.


Sec.  2.925  [Amended]

0
17. Section 2.925 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(3) and 
redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(3).

0
18. Section 2.926 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1), and 
(e) to read as follows:


Sec.  2.926  FCC identifier.

    (a) A grant of certification will list the validated FCC Identifier 
consisting of the grantee code assigned by the FCC pursuant to 
paragraph (b) of this section, and the equipment product code assigned 
by the grantee pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. See Sec.  
2.925.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) After assignment of a grantee code each grantee will continue 
to use the same grantee code for subsequent equipment authorization 
applications. In the event the grantee name is changed or ownership is 
transferred, the circumstances shall be reported to the Commission so 
that a new grantee code can be assigned, if appropriate. See Sec.  
2.929(c) and (d) for additional information.
* * * * *
    (e) No FCC Identifier may be used on equipment to be marketed 
unless that specific identifier has been validated by a grant of 
equipment certification. This shall not prohibit placement of an FCC 
identifier on a transceiver which includes a verified receiver subject 
to Sec.  15.101 of this chapter, provided that the transmitter portion 
of such transceiver is covered by a valid grant of type acceptance or 
certification. The FCC Identifier is uniquely assigned to the grantee 
and may not be placed on the equipment without authorization by the 
grantee. See Sec.  2.803 for conditions applicable to the display at 
trade shows of equipment which has not been granted equipment 
authorization where such grant is required prior to marketing. 
Labelling of such equipment may include model or type numbers, but 
shall not include a purported FCC Identifier.

0
19. Section 2.927 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.927  Limitations on grants.

    (a) A grant of certification is valid only when the FCC Identifier 
is permanently affixed on the device and remains effective until set 
aside, revoked, withdrawn, surrendered, or terminated.
    (b) A grant of certification recognizes the determination that the 
equipment has been shown to be capable of compliance with the 
applicable technical standards if no unauthorized change is made in the 
equipment and if the equipment is properly maintained and operated. The 
issuance of a grant of equipment certification shall not be construed 
as a finding with respect to matters not encompassed by the 
Commission's rules, especially with respect to compliance with 18 
U.S.C. 2512.
    (c) No person shall, in any advertising matter, brochure, etc., use 
or make reference to an equipment authorization in a deceptive or 
misleading manner or convey the impression that such certification 
reflects more than a Commission-authorized determination that the 
device or product has been shown to be capable of compliance with the 
applicable technical standards of the Commission's rules.
0
20. Section 2.929 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  2.929  Changes in name, address, ownership or control of grantee.

    (a) An equipment authorization may not be assigned, exchanged or in 
any other way transferred to a second party, except as provided in this 
section.
* * * * *
    (c) Whenever there is a change in the name and/or address of the 
grantee of certification, notice of such change(s) shall be submitted 
to the Commission via the Internet at https://apps.fcc.gov/eas within 
30 days after the grantee starts using the new name and/or address.
    (d) In the case of transactions affecting the grantee, such as a 
transfer of control or sale to another company, mergers, or transfer of 
manufacturing rights, notice must be given to the Commission via the 
Internet at https://apps.fcc.gov/eas within 60 days after the 
consummation of the transaction. Depending on the circumstances in each 
case, the Commission may require new applications for certification. In 
reaching a decision the Commission will consider whether the acquiring 
party can adequately ensure and accept responsibility for continued 
compliance with the regulations. In general, new applications for each 
device will not be required. A single application for certification may 
be filed covering all the affected equipment.

0
21. Section 2.932 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  2.932  Modification of equipment.

* * * * *
    (d) All requests for permissive changes must be accompanied by the 
anti-drug abuse certification required under Sec.  1.2002 of this 
chapter.

0
22. Section 2.933 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b) 
introductory text, and (b)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  2.933  Change in identification of equipment.

    (a) A new application for certification shall be filed whenever 
there is a change in the FCC Identifier for the equipment with or 
without a change in design, circuitry or construction. However, a 
change in the model/type number or trade name performed in accordance 
with the provisions in Sec.  2.924 of this chapter is not considered to 
be a change in identification and does not require additional 
authorization.
    (b) An application filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section 
where no change in design, circuitry or construction is involved, need 
not be accompanied by a resubmission of equipment or measurement or 
test data customarily required with a new application, unless 
specifically requested. In lieu thereof, the applicant shall attach a 
statement setting out:
* * * * *

[[Page 33442]]

    (5) The photographs required by Sec.  2.1033(b)(7) or (c)(12) 
showing the exterior appearance of the equipment, including the 
operating controls available to the user and the identification label. 
Photographs of the construction, the component placement on the 
chassis, and the chassis assembly are not required to be submitted 
unless specifically requested.
* * * * *


Sec.  2.936  [Removed]

0
23. Section 2.936 is removed.


Sec.  2.943  [Removed]

0
24. Section 2.943 is removed.

0
25. Section 2.945 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.945  Submission of equipment for testing and equipment records.

    (a) Prior to certification. (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, or 
provide a voucher for the equipment to be obtained from the 
marketplace, 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 or voucher to obtain a product from the marketplace 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, or request a voucher to obtain a 
product from the marketplace, 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 the Commission's 
laboratory and back to the party submitting the equipment shall be 
borne by the party from which the Commission 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 or vouchers within 21 days may 
be cause for actions such as such as suspending action on applications 
for certification submitted by a grantee or forfeitures pursuant to 
Sec.  1.80 of this chapter. The Commission or TCB requesting the sample 
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
26. Section 2.946 is removed.

0
27. Section 2.947 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  2.947  Measurement procedure.

    (a) Test data must be measured in accordance with the following 
standards or measurement procedures:
* * * * *
    (e) If deemed necessary, additional information may be required 
concerning the measurement procedures employed in obtaining the data 
submitted for equipment authorization purposes.

0
28. 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 that clearly show the details of the test site.
    (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 to 
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

[[Page 33443]]

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 
that it has recognized. The Commission will make publicly available a 
list of those laboratories that have indicated a willingness to perform 
testing for the general public. Inclusion of a facility on the 
Commission's list does not constitute Commission endorsement of that 
facility. In order to be included on this list, the accrediting 
organization (or Designating Authority in the case of foreign 
laboratories) must submit the information listed below to the 
Commission's laboratory:
    (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;
    (9) Other information as requested by the Commission.
    (d) When the measurement method used requires the testing of 
radiated emissions on a validated test site, the site attenuation must 
comply with the requirements of Sections 5.4.4 through 5.5 of the 
following procedure: ANSI C63.4-2014 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  2.910). Measurement facilities used to make radiated emission 
measurements from 30 MHz to 1 GHz shall comply with the site validation 
requirements in ANSI C63.4-2014 (clause 5.4.4) and for radiated 
emission measurements from 1 GHz to 40 GHz shall comply with the site 
validation requirement of ANSI C63.4-2014 (clause 5.5.1 a) 1)), such 
that the site validation criteria called out in CISPR 16-1-4:2010-04 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  2.910) 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 a Commission recognized 
accreditation organization based on the International Organization for 
Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission International 
Standard ISO/IEC 17025, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  2.910). 
The organization accrediting the laboratory must be recognized by the 
Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology, as indicated in 
Sec.  0.241 of this chapter, to perform such accreditation based on 
International Standard ISO/IEC 17011 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  2.910). The frequency for reassessment 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
29. Section 2.949 is added before the undesignated center heading 
``Verification'' to read as follows:


Sec.  2.949  Recognition 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). OET may request additional 
information, or showings, as needed, to determine the applicant's 
credentials and qualifications.
    (1) Successful completion of an ISO/IEC 17011 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  2.910) peer review, such as being a signatory to 
an accreditation agreement that is acceptable to the Commission.
    (2) Experience with the accreditation of electromagnetic 
compatibility (EMC), radio and telecommunications testing laboratories 
to ISO/IEC 17025 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  2.910).
    (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
30. Section 2.950 is added before the undesignated center heading 
``Verification'' to read as follows:


Sec.  2.950  Transition periods.

    (a) As of July 13, 2015 the Commission will no longer accept 
applications for Commission issued grants of equipment certification.
    (b) Prior to September 15, 2015 a TCB shall be accredited to either 
ISO/IEC Guide 65 or ISO/IEC 17065 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
2.910). On or after September 15, 2015 a TCB shall be accredited to 
ISO/IEC 17065.
    (c) Prior to September 15, 2015 an organization accrediting the 
prospective telecommunication certification body shall be capable of 
meeting the requirements and conditions of ISO/IEC Guide 61 or ISO/IEC 
17011 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  2.910). On or after 
September 15, 2015 an organization accrediting the prospective 
telecommunication certification body shall be capable of meeting the 
requirements and conditions of ISO/IEC 17011.
    (d) Prior to September 15, 2015 an organization accrediting the 
prospective accredited testing laboratory shall be capable of meeting 
the requirements and conditions of ISO/IEC Guide 58 or ISO/IEC 17011. 
On or after September 15, 2015 an organization accrediting the 
prospective accredited testing laboratory shall be capable of meeting 
the requirements and conditions of ISO/IEC 17011.
    (e) The Commission will no longer accept applications for Sec.  
2.948 test site listing as of July 13, 2015. Laboratories that are 
listed by the Commission under the Sec.  2.948 process will remain 
listed until the sooner of their expiration date or July 13, 2016 and 
may continue to submit test data in support of

[[Page 33444]]

certification applications for October 13, 2016. Laboratories with an 
expiration date before July 13, 2016 may request the Commission to 
extend their expiration date to July 13, 2016.
    (f) Measurement facilities used to make radiated emission 
measurements from 1 GHz to 40 GHz shall comply with the site validation 
option of ANSI C63.4-2014, (clause 5.5.1a)1)) which references CISPR 
16-1-4:2010-04 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  2.910) by July 13, 
2018.
    (g) Measurements for intentional radiators subject to part 15 of 
this chapter are to be made using the procedures in ANSI C63.10-2013 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  2.910) by July 13, 2016.
    (h) Measurements for unintentional radiators are to be made using 
the procedures in ANSI C63.4, except clauses 4.5.3, 4.6, 6.2.13, 8.2.2, 
9, and 13 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  2.910), by July 13, 
2016.
0
31. 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
32. Section 2.956 is removed.

0
33. Section 2.960 is by amending by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  2.960  Recognition of Telecommunication Certification Bodies 
(TCBs).

    (a) The Commission may recognize Telecommunication Certification 
Bodies (TCBs) which have been designated according to requirements of 
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section to issue grants of 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 review the application to determine compliance with 
the Commission's requirements and shall issue a grant of equipment 
certification in accordance with Sec.  2.911.
    (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 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  2.910) 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 
of this part.
    (c) * * *
    (1) The organization accrediting the prospective telecommunication 
certification body shall be capable of meeting the requirements and 
conditions of ISO/IEC 17011 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
2.910).
* * * * *

0
34. Section 2.962 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.962  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 
requirements of this section.
    (b) Certification methodology. (1) The certification system shall 
be based on type testing as identified in ISO/IEC 17065 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  2.910).
    (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.
    (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.
    (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 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
2.910) 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 covered 
by those technical regulations, as well as compliance with applicable 
parts of ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO/IEC 17065 shall be taken into 
consideration during assessment.
    (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.
    (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 in accordance with the applicable provisions of ISO/IEC 17065 for 
external resources (outsourcing) and other relevant standards. 
Evaluation is the selection of applicable requirements and the 
determination that those requirements are met. Evaluation may be 
performed using internal TCB resources or external (outsourced) 
resources.
    (2) A TCB shall not outsource review and certification decision 
activities.
    (3) When external resources are used to provide the evaluation 
function, including the testing of equipment subject to certification, 
the TCB shall be responsible for the evaluation and shall maintain 
appropriate oversight of the external resources used to ensure 
reliability of the evaluation. 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) Recognition of a TCB. (1)(i) The Commission will recognize as a 
TCB

[[Page 33445]]

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 certified 
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 
concerns or evidence that the TCB is not certifying equipment in 
accordance with the Commission's rules and policies and request that it 
explain and 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 days' 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 
certifications 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.
    (f) 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.
    (4) A TCB may only act on applications that it has received or 
which it has issued a grant of certification.
    (5) 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.
    (6) Within 30 days of the date of grant of certification the 
Commission or TCB issuing the grant may set aside a grant of 
certification that does not comply with the requirements or upon the 
request of the applicant. 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.
    (7) A TCB shall follow the procedures in Sec.  2.964 of this part 
for equipment on the pre-approval guidance list.
    (8) A TCB shall supply an electronic copy of each certification 
application 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.
    (9) A TCB shall grant or dismiss each certification application 
through the Commission's electronic filing system.
    (10) 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.
    (11) All TCB actions are subject to Commission review.
    (g) Post-market surveillance requirements. (1) In accordance with 
ISO/IEC 17065 a TCB shall perform 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.
    (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 30 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
35. 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 
Telecommunication Certification Bodies (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 that require guidance from the Commission. The TCB 
shall electronically submit the relevant exhibits to the Commission 
along with a specific description of the pertinent issues.

[[Page 33446]]

    (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 certified 
because it does not comply with the Commission's rules.

0
36. Section 2.1033 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(14), revising 
paragraph (c) introductory text and adding paragraph (c)(21) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  2.1033  Application for certification.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (14) 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:
* * * * *
    (21) 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
37. Section 2.1043 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and 
(f) to read as follows:


Sec.  2.1043  Changes in certificated equipment.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, changes 
to the basic frequency determining and stabilizing circuitry (including 
clock or data rates), frequency multiplication stages, basic modulator 
circuit or maximum power or field strength ratings shall not be 
performed without application for and authorization of a new grant of 
certification. Variations in electrical or mechanical construction, 
other than these indicated items, are permitted provided the variations 
either do not affect the characteristics required to be reported to the 
Commission or the variations are made in compliance with the other 
provisions of this section. Changes to the software installed in a 
transmitter that do not affect the radio frequency emissions do not 
require any additional filings and may be made by parties other than 
the holder of the grant of certification.
    (b) Three classes of permissive changes may be made in certificated 
equipment without requiring a new application for and grant of 
certification. None of the classes of changes shall result in a change 
in identification.
    (1) A Class I permissive change includes those modifications in the 
equipment which do not degrade the characteristics reported by the 
manufacturer and accepted by the Commission when certification is 
granted. No filing is required for a Class I permissive change.
    (2) A Class II permissive change includes those modifications which 
degrade the performance characteristics as reported to the Commission 
at the time of the initial certification. Such degraded performance 
must still meet the minimum requirements of the applicable rules. When 
a Class II permissive change is made by the grantee, the grantee shall 
provide complete information and the results of tests of the 
characteristics affected by such change. The modified equipment shall 
not be marketed under the existing grant of certification prior to 
acknowledgement that the change is acceptable.
    (3) A Class III permissive change includes modifications to the 
software of a software defined radio transmitter that change the 
frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either 
radiated or conducted) outside the parameters previously approved, or 
that change the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in 
accordance with Commission rules. When a Class III permissive change is 
made, the grantee shall provide a description of the changes and test 
results showing that the equipment complies with the applicable rules 
with the new software loaded, including compliance with the applicable 
RF exposure requirements. The modified software shall not be loaded 
into the equipment, and the equipment shall not be marketed with the 
modified software under the existing grant of certification, prior to 
acknowledgement that the change is acceptable. Class III changes are 
permitted only for equipment in which no Class II changes have been 
made from the originally approved device.

    Note to paragraph (b)(3): Any software change that degrades 
spurious and out-of-band emissions previously reported at the time 
of initial certification would be considered a change in frequency 
or modulation and would require a Class III permissive change or new 
equipment authorization application.

    (4) Class I and Class II permissive changes may only be made by the 
holder of the grant of certification, except as specified.
    (c) A grantee desiring to make a change other than a permissive 
change shall file a new application for certification accompanied by 
the required information as specified in this part and shall not market 
the modified device until the grant of certification has been issued. 
The grantee shall attach a description of the change(s) to be made and 
a statement indicating whether the change(s) will be made in all units 
(including previous production) or will be made only in those units 
produced after the change is authorized.
* * * * *
    (f) For equipment other than that operating under parts 15 or 18 of 
this chapter, when a Class II permissive change is made by other than 
the grantee of certification, the information and data specified in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be supplied by the person making 
the change. The modified equipment shall not be operated under an 
authorization prior to acknowledgement that the change is acceptable.
* * * * *

0
38. 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, relies 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

[[Page 33447]]

a reasonable request in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  2.945.
* * * * *

0
39. 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 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
40. Section 2.1076 is removed.

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

0
41. 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
42. Section 15.31 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3), removing the 
Note to 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 C63.10-2013 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  15.38).
    (4) Unintentional radiators are to be measured for compliance using 
the following procedure excluding clauses 4.5.3, 4.6, 6.2.13, 8.2.2, 9, 
and 13: ANSI C63.4-2014 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  15.38).
* * * * *

0
43. Section 15.38 is amended by revising paragraph (b), by 
redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (g), and by adding new 
paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  15.38  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) The following documents are available from the following 
address: American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd 
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or at http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/default.asp;
    (1) ANSI C63.17-2013: ``American National Standard for Methods of 
Measurement of the Electromagnetic and Operational Compatibility of 
Unlicensed Personal Communications Services (UPCS) Devices,'' approved 
August 12, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  15.31.
    (2) Third Edition of the International Special Committee on Radio 
Interference (CISPR), Pub. 22, Information Technology Equipment-Radio 
Disturbance Characteristics-Limits and Methods of Measurement,'' 1997, 
IBR approved for Sec.  15.09.
* * * * *
    (f) Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), 3916 
Ranchero Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, 1-800-699-9277, http://www.techstreet.com/ieee.
    (1) ANSI C63.4-2014: ``American National Standard for Methods of 
Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and 
Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz,'' ANSI approved 
June 13, 2014, IBR approved for Sec.  15.31(a)(4), except clauses 
4.5.3, 4.6, 6.2.13, 8.2.2, 9, and 13.
    (2) ANSI C63.10-2013, ``American National Standard of Procedures 
for Compliance Testing of Unlicensed Wireless Devices,''ANSI approved 
June 27, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  15.31(a)(3).
* * * * *


Sec.  15.109  [Amended]

0
44. Section 15.109 is amended by removing paragraph (g)(4).

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

0
45. 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
46. Section 68.160 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(c)(1) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  68.160  Designation of Telecommunication Certification Bodies 
(TCBs).

    (a) The Commission may recognize designated Telecommunication 
Certification Bodies (TCBs) which have been designated according to the 
requirements of paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section to certify 
equipment 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 17065:2012, 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 of this part.
    (c) * * *
    (1) The organization accrediting the prospective telecommunication 
certification body shall be capable of meeting the requirements and 
conditions of ISO/IEC 17011:2004.
* * * * *
    (d) Incorporation by reference. (1) 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. All approved material is 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 is available from the sources below. It is also available 
for inspection 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: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (2) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC Central 
Office, 3, rue de Varembe, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, Email: 
[email protected],www.iec.ch or 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: [email protected] . (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.)

[[Page 33448]]

    (i) ISO/IEC 17011:2004(E), ``Conformity assessment--General 
requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment 
bodies,'' First Edition, 2004-09-01, IBR approved for Sec.  68.160(c).
    (ii) ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E), ``Conformity assessment--Requirements 
for bodies certifying products, processes and services,'' First 
Edition, 2012-09-15.
0
47. Section 68.162 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), 
(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e), (f)(2), (g)(2) through (g)(4), and 
(h) and by adding paragraphs (g)(5), (g)(6) and (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  68.162  Requirements for Telecommunication Certification Bodies.

    (a) Telecommunication certification bodies (TCBs) designated by the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (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 1706 the evaluation of a product, or a portion thereof, may be 
performed by bodies that meet the applicable requirements of ISO/IEC 
1702 and ISO/IEC 17065, in accordance with the applicable provisions of 
ISO/IEC 17065, for external resources (outsourcing) and other relevant 
standards. Evaluation is the selection of applicable requirements and 
the determination that those requirements are met. Evaluation may be 
performed by using internal TCB resources or external (outsourced) 
resources.
    (2) A recognized TCB shall not outsource review and certification 
decision activities.
    (3) When external resources are used to provide the evaluation 
function, including the testing of equipment subject to certification, 
the TCB shall be responsible for the evaluation and shall maintain 
appropriate oversight of the external resources used to ensure 
reliability of the evaluation. 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) Recognition of TCBs. (1)(i) The Commission will recognize as a 
TCB any organization that meets the qualification criteria and is 
accredited and designated by NIST or its recognized accreditor as 
provided in Sec.  68.160(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 Mutual 
Recognition Agreement (MRA) as provided in Sec.  68.160(c).
    (2) The Commission will withdraw the recognition of a TCB if the 
TCB's accreditation or designation by NIST or its recognized accreditor 
is withdrawn, if the Commission determines there is just cause for 
withdrawing the recognition, or if the TCB requests that it no longer 
hold the recognition. The Commission will limit the scope of equipment 
that can be certified 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 a 
TCB with at least 60 day notice of its intention to withdraw the 
recognition and provide the TCB with an opportunity to respond. In the 
case of a TCB designated and recognized pursuant to an effective 
bilateral or multilateral MRA, the Commission shall consult with the 
Office of 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 may request that a TCB's Designating Authority 
or accreditation body investigate and take appropriate corrective 
actions as required, when it has concerns or evidence that the TCB is 
not certifying equipment in accordance with Commission rules or ACTA 
requirements, and the Commission may initiate action to limit or 
withdraw the recognition of the TCB.
    (4) If the Commission withdraws the recognition of a TCB, all 
certifications issued by that TCB will remain valid unless specifically 
revoked by the Commission.
    (5) A list of recognized TCBs will be published by the Commission.
    (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.
    (3) The Commission 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.

[[Page 33449]]

    (4) A TCBs may request samples of equipment that they have 
certified directly from the grantee of certification.
    (5) If during, post-market surveillance of a certified product, a 
certification body determines that a product fails to comply with the 
applicable technical regulations, the certification body shall 
immediately notify the grantee and the Commission. The TCB shall 
provide a follow-up report to the Commission within 30 days of 
reporting the non-compliance by the grantee to describe the resolution 
or plan to resolve the situation.
    (6) Where concerns arise, the TCB shall provide a copy of the 
application file to the Commission within 30 calendar days of a request 
for the file made by the Commission to the TCB and the manufacturer. 
Where appropriate, the file should be accompanied by a request for 
confidentiality for any material that may qualify for confidential 
treatment under the Commission's rules. If the application file is not 
provided within 30 calendar days, a statement shall be provided to the 
Commission as to why it cannot be provided.
    (h) In the case of a dispute with respect to designation or 
recognition of a TCB and the testing or certification of products by a 
TCB, the Commission will be the final arbiter. Manufacturers and 
recognized TCBs will be afforded at least 60 days to comment before a 
decision is reached. In the case of a TCB designated or recognized, or 
a product certified pursuant to an effective bilateral or multilateral 
mutual recognition agreement or arrangement (MRA) to which the United 
States is a party, the Commission may limit or withdraw its recognition 
of a TCB designated by an MRA party and revoke the Certification of 
products using testing or certification provided by such a TCB. 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 under the Telecommunications Trade Act 
of 1988.
    (i) Incorporation by reference: 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. All approved material is 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 is available from the sources below. It is also available 
for inspection 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: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (1) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC Central 
Office, 3, rue de Varembe,CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, Email: 
[email protected],www.iec.ch or 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: [email protected] . (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.)
    (i) ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), ``General requirements for the 
competence of testing and calibration laboratories,'' Second Edition, 
2005-05-15.
    (ii) ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E), ``Conformity assessment--Requirements 
for bodies certifying products, processes and services,'' First 
Edition, 2012-09-15.
    (2) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2015-14072 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P