The communications industry and the “RF equipment ecosystem” has changed dramatically since the last Commission’s last comprehensive review of its equipment authorization rules in 1998. Recognizing that it is easier than ever to design, manufacture and bring new RF equipment to market, the Commission has attempted to respond to these trends by taking actions aimed at streamlining and simplifying the equipment authorization program. In a recent blog post, we reported that new rules took effect in early July 2015 to expand the role of Telecommunications Certifications Bodies (“TCBs”) in the certification process. In the current NPRM, the Commission issues proposals to further streamline equipment authorization procedures while being mindful of maintaining sufficient safeguards to ensure that these RF devices comply with FCC rules and do not cause harmful interference.

The NPRM includes several key proposals:

• Unify the self-approval procedures. The Declaration of Conformity (“DoC”) and verification procedures are currently independent requirements for authorization. The NPRM proposes to combine them into one self-approval program for all equipment currently subject to one of those two procedures. The proposed new process, tentatively called a Suppliers Declaration of Conformity (“SDoC”), would eliminate the current obligation to use accredited laboratories but would clarify that all devices currently subject to the DoC or verification procedures must be tested. The proposed process would incorporate some but not all elements of the SDoC processes used for Telephone Network Terminal Equipment under Part 68.
• Update Certification Procedures. The Commission proposes updates to the certification requirements to respond to the trend of authorizing components, including modular transmitters, that will be used as part of more complex designs or in third-party host devices. The proposals focus on the parties responsible for submitting applications. The Commission proposes to amend the basic certification rules to allows for the certification of a group of related devices under a single FCC ID. Additionally, the Commission proposes to relocate the rules for modular transmitters from Part 15 to Part 2 in light of the increasing use of modular transmitters in RF devices intended for operation within licensed radio services. The NPRM also proposed changes to the software defined radio (“SDR”) rules to increase flexibility in certifying devices where the RF elements are controlled by software.
• Updated Certification Modification Process. The NPRM proposes to eliminate the current “electrically identical” framework for determining whether a device requires a new certification. Instead, there would be two categories of changes, those that require a new FCC ID and those that do not. The proposed rule changes would require an evaluation of the modifications, and potentially testing, to determine the change category. Changes that do not substantially alter the overall function of the device will not require a new FCC ID, but in some cases may still require a new application for certification. Where a new FCC ID is required, due to substantial changes to design or layout, or replacement of components, a new certification would be a prerequisite.
• Clarification of Responsible Party. The NPRM proposes to clarify who the responsible party is for obtaining certification in a number of scenarios, including when end products incorporate modular transmitters, third parties modify equipment , parties intend to market repaired or refurbished devices, and importers bring products into the U.S.
• Streamlined Certification Application Requirements. The NPRM seeks comment on reducing the information that must be provided when applying for certification. The FCC proposes to reduce duplicative information requirements as well as only require applicants to submit specific information based on the type of device to be certified. The NPRM proposes to codify existing short-term confidentiality practices for certain types of information allowing for a standard 45 day period upon request and seeks comment on extending that period to 180 days. Further, long-term confidentiality would be provided automatically for certain information categories (such as exhibits of schematics or operational descriptions) in all certification applications.
• The E-LABEL ACT. The NPRM also seeks comment on a series of updates to the equipment labeling obligations to recognize and codify the requirements of the E-LABEL Act. For example, the proposed rules will generally allow an RF device with an integrated electronic display to electronically display the labels required by the FCC rules. However, even where devices have integrated displays, parties would still be required to place warning statements or other information on device packaging, within user manuals, or at the point of sale as otherwise required under FCC regulations.
• Importation Requirements. The NPRM questions the usefulness of the information provided on the current FCC Form 740 declaration for imported devices, particularly since much of the information is already collected by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and may also be available on the internet. The FCC seeks comment on the continued use of collecting Form 740 information. The NPRM also proposes changes, among other things, to the number of imported devices permitted for demonstrations at trade shows and in other instances prior to satisfaction of the relevant equipment authorization procedure.

The Order does not give the reasons for the Bureau launching an investigation into Rane’s marketing and manufacture of its digital devices, i.e., whether there was an interference event, whether it was tipped off that there was a potential marketing violation, or whether the Bureau was conducting a random investigation. But it is plain that the Bureau focused on the adherence of Rane’s product labels and customer disclosures in its manuals with the FCC’s equipment authorization rules. It is likely the Bureau also examined whether the devices had been properly tested before marketing commenced (pursuant to the Commission’s certification, verification, or declaration of conformity procedures, as applicable to each device) and found to comply with the applicable technical limits. The Consent Decree explains that, during the investigation, Rane discovered that some of its devices were apparently not labeled in a complaint manner (if at all) and that some user manuals did not include the requisite disclosures.

In the Consent Decree, Rane agreed to a voluntary contribution of $61,000 to the U.S. Treasury. But, without information about the number of apparent violations discovered or the numbers of models and units affected, it is impossible to comment meaningfully about the scale of this dollar amount.

Of perhaps more interest, because comprehensive details are provided, is the Compliance Plan in the Consent Decree. In the long run, Rane’s adherence to the Compliance Plan may possible prove more burdensome than the voluntary contribution. The Compliance Plan details are discussed in detail in our full Advisory on the Order and Consent Decree. In brief, without being exhaustive, Rane agreed to (1) designate a responsible and duly-qualified senior corporate manager to serve as Compliance Officer ; (2) establish operating procedures that employees with duties related to Rane’s responsibilities under the FCC rules must follow to help ensure compliance, for example, with the equipment authorization, labeling, and use disclosure rules; (3) develop, distribute, and keep current a compliance manual covering the FCC’s marketing rules and Rane’s related operating procedures; (4) train employees with duties related to Rane’s responsibilities under the FCC marketing rules on adherence to the marketing rules and how to report non-compliance; and (5) prepare and file detailed periodic compliance reports and one-off reports when a non-compliance event occurs.

Of particular note is the fact that the Compliance Plan will remain in effect for four years, which is longer than the compliance plans that have been included in most recent FCC consent decrees and forfeiture orders. It is not clear whether this signals a general trend or one that may be applicable to equipment manufacturers in particular.