BNUMBER: B-271810.7, GAO/OGC-96-21
DATE: July 2, 1996
TITLE: Amendments of Parts 2 and 15 of the Federal Communication
Commis, B-271810.7, GAO/OGC-96-21, July 2, 1996
**********************************************************************
Subject: Amendments of Parts 2 and 15 of the Federal Communication
Commission Rules to Deregulate the Equipment Authorization
Requirements for Digital Devices
File: B-271810.7, GAO/OGC-96-21
Date: July 2, 1996
B-271810.7
July 2, 1996
The Honorable Larry Pressler
Chairman
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
United States Senate
The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable John D. Dingell
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives
Subject:Amendment of Parts 2 and 15 of the Federal Communication
Commission Rules to Deregulate the Equipment Authorization
Requirements for Digital Devices
Pursuant to section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, this
is our report on a major rule promulgated by Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), entitled "Amendment of Parts 2 and 15 of the
Commission's Rules to Deregulate the Equipment Authorization
Requirements for Digital Devices" (ET Docket No. 95-19: FCC 96-208).
We received the rule on May 30, 1996. It was published in the Federal
Register as a final rule on June 19, 1996.
The FCC's Report and Order amending Parts 2 and 15 of Title 47 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, deregulates the equipment authorization
requirements for personal computers and peripherals. The Order
provides for a new self-authorization process based on a
manufacturer's or supplier's declaration of compliance with all FCC
requirements. The original certification procedure required
submission of a written application, test report and fee (and a device
for testing in some cases) to the FCC laboratory. The FCC estimates
that the new procedure will save industry approximately $250 million
annually in administrative expenses.
Enclosed is our assessment of the FCC's compliance with the procedural
steps required by section 801(a)(1)(B)(i) through (iv) of title 5 with
respect to the rule. Our review indicates that the FCC complied with
the applicable requirements.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact Alan
Zuckerman, Assistant General Counsel, at (202) 512-4586. The official
responsible for GAO evaluation work relating to the Federal
Communications Commission is John Anderson, Director, Transportation
and Telecommunications Issues. Mr. Anderson can be reached at (202)
512-8234.
Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel
Enclosure
cc:
Andrew S. Fishel, Managing Director
Federal Communications Commission
ENCLOSURE
ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 15 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO
DEREGULATE THE EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DIGITAL
DEVICES RULE UNDER 5 U.S.C. sec. 801(A)(i)(B)(I)-(iv)
(i) Cost-benefit analysis
The Commission indicated in its submission that it was not required to
prepare a cost-benefit analysis of the rule.
(ii) Agency actions relevant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. sec. 603-605, 607 and 609
Section 603: Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
Pursuant to section 603 of the Act, the Commission incorporated an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in it Notice of Proposed Rule
Making. The Commission's Proposed Rule Making was published in the
Federal Register, 61 Fed. Reg. 15116, March 22, 1995. Our review of
the initial analysis indicates that the requirements of section 603
have been met. At that time, written comments on the proposal were
requested. The Commission also reports that it forwarded a copy of
its initial regulatory flexibility analysis to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) as required by the
Act, and that the SBA did not file comments.
Section 604: Final regulatory flexibility analysis
The Commission prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
pursuant to section 604. That analysis notes that the rule was needed
in order to reduce regulatory burdens on computer manufacturers, to
remove impediments to flexible systems design and construction
techniques, and to reduce the potential for interference to radio
services by improving the Commission's ability to ensure that personal
computers comply with the Commission's standards and testing
procedures. The Commission further notes that no commenting parties
raised issues specifically in response to the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, and that no significant alternatives were
considered.
Section 605: Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analysis
The Commission did not invoke any of the exemptions or special
procedures authorized by section 605 in preparing its regulatory
flexibility analysis.
Section 607: Preparation of analyses
Under section 607, the Commission's submission does not specifically
indicate the potential economic impact or the number of small entities
affected. However, the initial regulatory flexibility analysis
indicates that the rule will result in a significant decrease in the
amount of testing and Commission authorization of computer systems
with a resultant reduction in economic burden. The Commission notes
that there are 100-150 manufacturers of various component devices but
does not indicate what the ratio of large to small business might be
in this mix.
Section 609: Participation by small entities
In addition to the actions required by 5 U.S.C. sec. 553, the Commission
also made available a complete copy of the proposed and final
rulemaking materials via the Internet. There were no special efforts
made by the Commission to involve small entities in the rulemaking
process.
(iii) Agency actions relevant to sections 202-205 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. sec. 1532-1535
As an independent regulatory agency, the Commission is not subject to
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
(iv) Other relevant information or requirements under Acts and
Executive orders
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 551 et seq.
The rule was promulgated through the general notice of proposed
rulemaking procedures of the Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 553. The Commission
afforded interested persons the opportunity to comment on the proposed
rule, and the Commission's Report and Order adopted on May 9, 1996,
and released May 14, 1996, addresses these comments.
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. sec. 3501-3520
The Final Report and Order is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, and has received OMB clearance (OMB #3060-0636).
Statutory authorization for the rule
The new rules are promulgated with the authority provided in the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i),
301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307. In addition, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-114, 110 Stat.56
(1996), provides specific new authority to the Commission to eliminate
unnecessary regulations and functions, and among other things,
authorizes the use of private organizations for testing and certifying
the compliance of devices with regulations promulgated by the FCC.
The Commission did not identify any other statutes or Executive Orders
imposing requirements relevant to the rule.