**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | ET Docket No. 01-278         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Review of Part 15 and other      | ) |                              |
| Parts of the Commission's Rules  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted:** November 5, 2004 **Released:** November 9, 2004

By the Commission:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In this *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, we are addressing three
    petitions for reconsideration of various aspects of the rule changes
    adopted in the *Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and
    Order* (*Second Report and Order*) in this proceeding.[^1] In
    particular, we are: 1) granting a request to permit compliance
    information statements for self-authorized equipment to be provided
    in alternative formats; 2) granting a request to permit longer
    duration transmissions during the setup of security systems; and 3)
    denying requests to permit electronic labeling of self-authorized
    equipment, to further relax the equipment authorization requirements
    for low frequency intentional radiators and to require foreign
    regulators to accept accreditations of United States laboratories.

# BACKGROUND

2.  In the *Second Report and Order*, the Commission updated certain
    regulations contained in Parts 2, 15 and 18 of the rules.
    Specifically, the Commission: 1) changed the harmonic emission
    limits in certain restricted bands above 38.6 GHz; 2) eliminated the
    prohibition on data transmissions by Part 15 remote control devices
    and made other changes to rules governing such devices; 3) modified
    the rules for radio frequency identification systems to allow for
    improved operation; 4) simplified the labeling requirements for
    manufacturer self-authorized equipment; 5) allowed Part 15
    information statements to be provided in alternative formats, such
    as on computer disk or over the Internet; and 6) relaxed the
    equipment authorization requirement for low-frequency, low-powered
    intentional radiators from certification to verification.

3.  Three parties filed petitions for reconsideration of the changes
    adopted in the *Second Report and Order*. Cisco Systems, Inc.
    (Cisco) requests that the Commission expand the scope of the rule
    changes that allows manufacturers to provide Part 15 information
    statements in alternative forms to include the compliance
    information statement supplied with equipment authorized under the
    Declaration of Conformity (DoC) procedure.[^2] G.E. Interlogix, Inc.
    requests that the Commission reconsider its decision on remote
    control devices that prohibits installers of security systems from
    exceeding the five second limit on manual and automatic
    transmissions in Section 15.231 during the equipment set-up
    process.[^3] The Information Technology Industry Council requests
    that the Commission: 1) make additional changes to the labeling
    requirements for self-authorized equipment to permit electronic
    labeling for equipment subject to DoC as it does for software
    defined radios; 2) allow manufacturers to provide the compliance
    information in alternative forms for equipment authorized under the
    DoC procedure as is now permitted for Part 15 information
    statements; 3) extend the relaxed equipment authorization
    requirements for low-frequency, low-powered intentional radiators to
    higher frequencies; and 4) insist that foreign regulators accept
    accreditations of United States laboratories, including
    manufacturers' laboratories.[^4]

# Discussion

## DoC compliance information statements

4.  In the *Second Report and Order*, the Commission modified the rules
    to permit Part 15 information statements to be placed in the
    instruction manual of a device when the manual is provided in
    formats other than paper, such as on a computer disk or over the
    Internet.[^5] The Commission stated that these changes will provide
    increased flexibility to manufacturers, result in cost savings to
    the industry and could enhance access to the disabled community
    because computers could "read" information to the user or magnify it
    for easier viewing. In recognition of the fact that some persons do
    not have access to a computer or the Internet and would not have the
    capability of reading instruction manuals in alternative formats,
    the Commission allowed warning statements to be provided in
    alterative forms only when the instruction manual is provided in the
    same alternative form and the user can reasonably be expected to
    have the capability to access information in that form. For example,
    warning statements may be provided in a manual on a CD-ROM or other
    type of computer disk when no paper manual is provided, and the
    equipment either has the capability of reading the disk or is used
    with equipment that is capable of reading the disk. Warning
    statements may be provided in a manual on the Internet only when the
    manual is provided solely over the Internet and the equipment will
    be used with Internet access. These rule changes applied to
    information statements required by Sections 15.21, 15.27(a) and
    15.105(e) of the rules.

5.  In their petitions, Cisco and ITI note that the rule changes adopted
    in the *Second Report and Order* that allow information statements
    to be supplied in alternative forms do not apply to the compliance
    information statements that are required by Section 2.1077 to be
    supplied with equipment authorized under the DoC procedure.[^6]
    Cisco states that the omission of Section 2.1077 from the same
    treatment of other information was not recognized by the industry
    during the filing of comments during the FCC proceeding. It states
    that in reviewing the requirements and comparing the various types
    of information, it cannot identify any good reason why the DoC
    compliance information statement should not be included among the
    documents that manufacturers can provide to end users over the
    Internet. Cisco further states that because manufacturers cannot
    provide this information over the Internet, manufacturers and users
    will bear the cost of providing the information with a product with
    no clear regulatory benefit to anyone. ITI requests that the
    Commission revise Section 2.1077 to make the rule consistent with
    the revised Part 15 rules for providing information statements in
    alternative formats.

6.  The exclusion of DoC compliance statements from the same treatment
    as Part 15 information statements was an inadvertent omission by the
    Commission that, as Cisco notes, was not recognized by industry at
    the time comments were filed in this proceeding.[^7] We agree with
    Cisco and ITI that permitting DoC compliance information statements
    to be provided in alternative formats will offer increased
    flexibility to manufacturers and result in cost savings to the
    industry. Accordingly, we are amending Section 2.1077 of the rules
    to allow DoC compliance statements to be provided in formats other
    than paper, such as on a computer disk or over the Internet.
    Consistent with the Commission's actions in the *Second Report and
    Order* for Part 15 information statements, we will allow compliance
    information statements to be provided in alterative forms only when
    the instruction manual is provided in the same alternative form and
    the user can reasonably be expected to have the capability to access
    information in that form. These requirements will help ensure that
    the DoC compliance information statement is accessible to all
    persons using a given device.

## Remote control device transmission duration limits

7.  In the *Second Report and Order*, the Commission denied a request by
    G.E. Interlogix to modify Section 15.231 of the rules to allow
    remote control devices to be operated with transmission durations
    greater than five seconds during equipment setup. This section
    requires a device to cease transmissions within five seconds after
    being activated automatically or after a manually operated switch
    that activates it is released. G.E. Interlogix had requested that
    the Commission allow longer duration transmissions in comments filed
    in response to the *Notice*, stating that sophisticated systems
    often require longer transmissions to initialize them.[^8] The
    Commission denied this request in the *Second Report and Order*,
    stating that G.E. Interlogix had not shown why the existing limits
    were inadequate for the situations it identified.[^9]

8.  In its petition for reconsideration, G.E. Interlogix states that it
    met with Commission representatives in January 2001 and discussed
    the problem of security systems requiring a lengthier setup period
    for new systems than could be accomplished within the five second
    period permitted under Section 15.231. G.E. Interlogix states that
    it advised the Commission staff that while setup transmissions can,
    in theory, be performed in the manual mode, in practice, systems are
    designed for an automatic download of setup data and the five second
    transmission limitation can be too restrictive for certain
    sophisticated systems. It further advised that system setup
    generally occurs only once, but in rare cases such as a property
    changing hands or system failure, a system must be reinitialized.
    G.E. Interlogix submitted a copy of an interpretation letter issued
    by staff at the Commission's Laboratory stating that a transmission
    that exceeds the five second limit in Section 15.231 is permissible
    to initiate a system, provided it occurs only once. G.E. Interlogix
    states that while its comments filed in response to the *Notice*
    requested that the Commission codify this interpretation, it did not
    supply supportive data because it considered the request to be
    non-controversial. It states that setup transmissions used by all
    wireless security systems are not control signals in the strict
    sense, nor are they recognition codes, and the Part 15 rules were
    never specifically designed to account for them. It further states
    that setup transmissions are not performed by the user of the
    security equipment and are not transmissions that occur during the
    functioning of the security system. Rather, they are transmissions
    that provide a system with the initial programming required for
    operation. GE Interlogix states that in a sophisticated security
    system the setup process can exceed five seconds because a low data
    rate is required to reliably transmit the setup information at the
    low signal levels permitted by the rules. It requests that the
    Commission: 1) reconsider its decision in the *Second Report and
    Order* and permit transmission of setup information for security
    systems in excess of five seconds, provided such transmissions are
    under the control of a professional installer, and 2) clarify that
    data transmissions during a setup procedure are permitted under
    Section 15.231. G.E. Interlogix notes that none of its systems use
    setup transmissions in excess of ten seconds.[^10]

9.  The Commission denied G.E. Interlogix's request to modify Section
    15.231 in the *Second Report and Order* because it did not provide
    sufficient justification for a change to this rule section. Based
    upon the additional information supplied in G.E. Interlogix's
    petition, we are persuaded that there is, in some cases, a need to
    allow installers of complex security systems to initiate
    transmissions of greater than the five second duration permitted by
    Section 15.231. We are therefore amending Section 15.231 of the
    rules to allow setup transmissions, including data, of greater than
    the five second limit in Sections 15.231(a)(1) and (a)(2), provided
    such transmissions are under the control of a professional
    installer. To minimize the likelihood of interference to authorized
    users of the spectrum, we will limit setup transmissions to no more
    than ten seconds, which G.E. Interlogix indicates is adequate for
    all of its systems.[^11] This action will allow manufacturers
    greater flexibility in the design of complex security systems while
    resulting in a negligible increase in interference potential for
    these systems because the longer duration transmissions are only
    five seconds longer than the rules currently allow and will
    generally occur only once per system.

## Declaration of Conformity (DoC) labeling

10. In the *Second Report and Order*, the Commission simplified the
    labeling requirements for equipment authorized under the DoC
    procedure.[^12] For most devices authorized under the DoC procedure,
    the changed rule requires that the label show the FCC logo and the
    equipment trade name and model number.[^13] The Commission also
    clarified in the *Second Report and Order* that the trade name and
    model number may be placed on the equipment in a location other than
    on the DoC label when necessary. In addition, the Commission denied
    a request by ITI and other parties to permit electronic labeling for
    equipment authorized under the DoC procedure. In denying ITI's
    request, the Commission stated that the Part 2 rules permit
    electronic labeling for software defined radios because there is
    sometimes a need for a third party to change the identification
    number of a radio in the field when changes are made to the software
    that affect the device's operating frequency, modulation type or
    maximum output power.[^14] This permits the identification number to
    be changed without physical re-labeling of a radio. The Commission
    stated that none of the comments in this proceeding have shown that
    there is a similar need to allow this capability in equipment
    subject to DoC.

11. In its petition, ITI repeats its request that the Commission permit
    electronic labeling for equipment subject to DoC.[^15] It states
    that this change would reduce costs for products that already have
    displays because the identifying marks could be maintained in memory
    and displayed on startup or on demand while the product is
    operating. ITI further states that electronic labeling could be used
    by the Commission for product approval purposes such as the
    difficult administrative task of tracking grant notices.

12. As indicated above, the Commission considered and rejected ITI's
    request to allow electronic labeling of equipment subject to DoC in
    the *Second Report and Order.* ITI has not provided any new
    information in its petition that would lead us to change our
    decision on this subject. The revised DoC labeling rules require
    only the FCC logo, equipment trade name and model number on a
    device, and manufacturers already place a trade name and model
    number on virtually all devices made. Therefore, the DoC labeling
    requirement is not a significant burden. Further, there is not a
    need to change the identification information for devices subject to
    DoC after manufacture as there is for software defined radios where
    the operating parameters and FCC identification number may be
    changed post-manufacture.[^16] ITI has also not shown how electronic
    labeling could be used by the Commission for product approval
    purposes, such as tracking grant notices, because there is no grant
    notice for equipment subject to DoC. Accordingly, we decline to
    allow electronic labeling for equipment subject to DoC.

## Other matters

13. *Very low power intentional radiators*. In the *Second Report and
    Order*, the Commission changed the equipment authorization
    requirement from certification to verification for intentional
    radiators operating below 490 kHz in which all emissions are at
    least 40 dB below the Part 15 limit.[^17] The Commission stated that
    because the interference potential of such devices is extremely low,
    requiring certification seems to be an unnecessary burden on
    manufacturers.[^18] ITI states that it supports the Commission's
    decision to eliminate the certification requirement for very low
    powered intentional radiators, but requests that the Commission
    consider extending the verification process to higher frequency
    bands.[^19] However, ITI did not provide specific information on the
    operating parameters (*e.g*., frequency range or output signal
    level) for intentional radiators that that it believes should be
    subject to verification or provide technical justification for
    making changes to the authorization requirement for certain
    intentional radiators. Based on the lack of a specific request and
    record on this issue, we decline to make further changes to the
    authorization requirements for very low power intentional radiators
    at this time.

14. *Accreditation of test laboratories*. In the *Second Report and
    Order*, the Commission eliminated the requirement for an accredited
    laboratory to file a description of its measurement facilities with
    the Commission if the accrediting organization submitted certain
    information about the laboratory to the Commission.[^20] The purpose
    of this change was to reduce the burden on laboratories by
    eliminating the need to file duplicate information with both the
    Commission and an accrediting organization. ITI requests that in
    addition to this change, the Commission insist that foreign
    regulators also accept similar accreditations from U.S.
    laboratories, including manufacturer's laboratories, but it did not
    identify any specific rule changes that the Commission could make to
    accomplish this objective. This issue is more appropriately
    addressed in the context of negotiating mutual recognition
    agreements or arrangements (MRAs) with other administrations than in
    this proceeding. We therefore decline to make any rule changes
    concerning the acceptance of U.S. laboratory accreditations by
    foreign regulators.

# Procedural Matters

15. *Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification*. The Regulatory
    Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),[^21] requires that a
    regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking
    proceedings, unless the agency certifies that "the rule will not
    have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    entities."[^22] The RFA generally defines the term \"small entity\"
    as having the same meaning as the terms \"small business,\" \"small
    organization,\" and \"small governmental jurisdiction.\"[^23] In
    addition, the term \"small business\" has the same meaning as the
    term \"small business concern\" under the Small Business Act.[^24] A
    small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and
    operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
    satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
    Administration.

16. The *Second Report and Order* modified the rules to allow Part 15
    information statements to be provided to the user of equipment in
    alternative forms, such as on a CD-ROM or over the Internet. The
    *Second Report and Order* also denied a request by G.E. Interlogix
    to allow security system setup transmissions of greater duration
    than the five second limit currently in Section 15.231(a) of the
    rules. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was incorporated in
    the *Second Report and Order*.[^25] Following publication of the
    *Second Report and Order*, Cisco and ITI filed their petitions
    seeking to allow the compliance information statement for equipment
    authorized under the DoC procedure to be provided in alternative
    forms. G.E. Interlogix filed a petition requesting that the
    Commission reconsider its denial of G.E. Interlogix's request to
    permit longer duration transmissions during the setup of security
    systems. In this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* we are amending the
    rules to allow DoC compliance information statements to be included
    in alternative forms and to allow longer duration setup
    transmissions for security systems.

17. These amendments to the rules will affect manufacturers of radio
    frequency devices that are authorized under the DoC procedure and
    manufacturers of security systems, and it is the Commission's belief
    that many of these manufacturers are small businesses. The changes
    in this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* are deregulatory in nature
    because they eliminate the need for manufacturers to supply paper
    statements with equipment subject to DoC and allow greater
    flexibility in the setup of security systems. For this reason, these
    changes will not result in a "significant economic burden" on
    manufacturers. Therefore, we certify that the amendments included in
    this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* will not have a significant
    economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

18. The Commission will send a copy of the *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, including a copy of this final certification, in a report to
    Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
    Fairness Act of 1996.[^26] In addition, the *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order* and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and will be published
    in the Federal Register.[^27]

19. For further information regarding this *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, contact Mr. Hugh L. Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering and
    Technology, (202) 418-7506, e-mail
    [Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov](mailto:Hugh.Vantuyl@fcc.gov).

# ordering clauses

20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained
    in Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i),
    301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), this Memorandum Opinion and
    Order IS ADOPTED and Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's Rules Are
    amended as set forth in the attached appendix effective 30 days
    after publication in the Federal Register.

21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in
    Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i),
    301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the motion for partial
    reconsideration filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. on September 12, 2003
    IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein.

22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in
    Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i),
    301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the motion for reconsideration
    and clarification filed by the Information Technology Institute on
    September 17, 2003 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART to the
    extent indicated herein.

23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in
    Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i),
    301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the petition for
    reconsideration filed by G.E. Interlogix, Inc. on January 8, 2004 IS
    GRANTED to the extent indicated herein.

24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the
    Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

# Appendix: FINAL Rule Changes {#appendix-final-rule-changes .unnumbered}

Part 2 of Title 47 the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

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

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

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

**§ 2.1077 Compliance information.**

\* \* \* \* \*

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

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

**AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307, 336 and 544A.**

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

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

\(a\) \* \* \*

\(5\) Transmission of set-up information for security systems may exceed
the transmission duration limits in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
section, provided such transmissions are under the control of a
professional installer and do not exceed ten seconds after a manually
operated switch is released or a transmitter is activated automatically.
Such set-up information may include data.

[^1]: *See Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order* in
    ET Docket No. 01-278, 18 FCC Rcd 14741 (2003).

[^2]: *See* Cisco motion for partial reconsideration (Cisco petition)
    dated September 12, 2003 at 3.

[^3]: *See* G.E. Interlogix petition for reconsideration (G.E.
    Interlogix petition) dated January 8, 2004 at 4.

[^4]: *See* ITI motion for reconsideration and clarification (ITI
    petition) dated September 17, 2003 at 2-4.

[^5]: *See Second Report and Order* at 14758. Part 15 requires certain
    information to be included in the instruction manual for a device,
    including a statement that unauthorized modifications to a device
    could void the user's authority to operate it. In addition, the
    manual for a digital device must include a warning of the potential
    for interference to other devices and a list of some steps that
    could possibly eliminate the interference. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.21,
    15.27 and 15.105.

[^6]: *See* Cisco petition at 2.

[^7]: *Id.*.

[^8]: *See Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order* in ET Docket No.
    01-278, 16 FCC Rcd 18205 (2001) and G.E. Interlogix comments at 2-3.

[^9]: *See Second Report and Order* at p.14749.

[^10]: *See* G.E. Interlogix petition at 4, footnote 1.

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *See Second Report and Order* at p. 14753.

[^13]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.19(b)(1). The label for a personal computers
    that was assembled from tested components must also include the
    phrases, "Assembled from tested components" and "Complete system not
    tested".

[^14]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.925(e).

[^15]: *See* ITI petition at 2.

[^16]: Devices subject to DoC include VCRs, personal computers and
    peripherals, and non-broadcast radio receivers that tune in the
    range of 30-960 MHz.

[^17]: *See Second Report and Order* at p. 14756. Certification requires
    the manufacturer to have the equipment tested for compliance, then
    file an application and wait for approval before the equipment can
    be marketed. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803, 2.907 and 2.1033.
    Verification requires the manufacturer to have the equipment tested
    and to retain certain information on file. No application filing is
    required for verification and the equipment may be sold as soon as
    it is found to comply. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.902 and 2.955.

[^18]: *See Second Report and Order* at p. 14756.

[^19]: *See* ITI petition at 3.

[^20]: *See Second Report and Order* at p. 14762.

[^21]: The *RFA*, *see* 5 U.S.C § 601 *et. seq.,* has been amended by
    the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
    104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1966) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^22]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^23]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^24]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^25]: *See* 68 FR 68531, 68541, December 9, 2003.

[^26]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^27]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).