Office of the General Counsel
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 selfauthorization 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.
GAO/OGC-96-21
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
Page 2 GAO/OGC-96-21
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. § 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. §§ 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.
GAO/OGC-96-21
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. § 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. §§ 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. §§ 551 et seq.
The rule was promulgated through the general notice of proposed
rulemaking procedures of the Act, 5 U.S.C. § 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. §§ 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,
Page 2 GAO/OGC-96-21
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.
Page 3 GAO/OGC-96-21
