********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                )
                                )
Revision of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules)
Relating to the Marketing and Authorization) ET Docket No. 94-45
of Radio Frequency Devices      )  RM-8125


                        REPORT AND ORDER
                                
                                
Adopted:  February 3, 1997;     Released:  February 12, 1997

By the Commission:



                          INTRODUCTION

     1.   By this action, the Commission is amending the marketing regulations and equipment
authorization procedures that apply to radio frequency (RF) devices.  Currently, these regulations
generally prohibit the marketing and operation of an RF device unless the device has complied with
the applicable FCC technical standards and equipment authorization procedures.  The changes
adopted herein will provide manufacturers greater flexibility in marketing their products by applying
to all RF devices the same, less restrictive marketing regulations that now apply only to industrial,
scientific and medical (ISM) devices and to certain types of digital devices.  In particular, the new
rules will allow all RF devices in the development, design or preproduction stages to be advertised,
displayed, and offered for sale to distributors and retailers prior to a demonstration of compliance
with the applicable technical standards and compliance with the applicable equipment authorization
procedure.  The new rules will also eliminate the need for manufacturers to obtain from the
Commission a developmental license or a special temporary authority to operate certain categories
of products for compliance testing, demonstration at trade shows, or evaluation of performance and
customer acceptability at the manufacturer's facilities or at a business, commercial, industrial,
scientific or medical user's site during the product development stages.  These changes will stimulate
growth by decreasing the time it takes for a product to reach the marketplace and by permitting
products to be developed on a cooperative basis by manufacturers and retailers.


                            BACKGROUND
     2.   Subpart I of Part 2 of the Commission's rules contains regulations governing the
marketing of RF devices.  These rules describe the conditions that must be met before an RF device
may be marketed in the United States.  Subpart J of Part 2 of the rules specifies the equipment
authorization procedures that apply to RF devices.  These rules describe the  procedures that must
be followed to obtain equipment authorization, the procedures used by the Commission to administer
the equipment authorization program, and the responsibilities of manufacturers and importers under
these procedures.

     3.   In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice) in this proceeding, the Commission
proposed to amend the marketing rules and equipment authorization procedures in Subparts I and
J of Part 2 of its rules.  Specifically, in response to a Petition for Rule Making from the Consumer
Electronics Group of the Electronic Industries Association (EIA/CEG) the Commission proposed
a number of changes to consolidate and harmonize the marketing rules to allow all radio devices to
be announced, advertized, displayed, activated at trade shows, and offered for sale prior to
completion of the applicable equipment authorization requirements, provided that the prospective
buyer is advised in writing that the products must comply with those requirements before delivery. 
The Commission also proposed several changes to the equipment authorization rules to resolve
inconsistencies and to remove unnecessary restrictions.  These changes were intended to assist
industry by reducing the time it takes to introduce new products.

     4.   Comments and/or reply comments responding to the proposed changes to the marketing
and equipment authorization rules were submitted by a number of parties.  Generally, the comments
are supportive of the Commission's efforts to harmonize and clarify its marketing and equipment
authorization rules.  The Commission also received numerous suggestions for improving or
modifying these proposed rules.  The issues raised in the comments are addressed in the following
paragraphs.


                      MARKETING REGULATIONS 

Existing Rules

     5.  In general, the current marketing regulations prohibit the marketing of RF devices prior
to a demonstration that the device complies with the applicable technical standards and the
completion of the applicable equipment authorization requirements.  The regulations also provide
several exemptions to this general rule.  In particular, Section 2.806 permits certain digital devices
to be:  1) announced and offered for sale prior to authorization; 2) operated for compliance testing;
3) operated for performance evaluation at the manufacturer's or at a user's site; 4) demonstrated at
a trade show; and 5) tested for compliance at an end user's site after installation.  In addition,
Section 2.809 provides similar exemptions to the marketing rules for industrial, scientific, and
medical (ISM) devices subject to the provisions in Part 18 of the rules.  Further, Section 2.803
permits the advertising and display, but not activation, of products that require type acceptance,
certification or notification prior to obtaining a grant of authorization as long as the advertising or
display is accompanied by a notice that the equipment has not been authorized and may not be
marketed until Commission authorization has been obtained.  However, Section 2.805, which
addresses the marketing of devices that do not require a grant of equipment authorization to be
issued by the Commission, i.e., devices subject to authorization under the verification procedure,
does not contain any provisions that permit advertising or display before a product has been
demonstrated to comply with the applicable standards.  The Commission's staff has, however, in
an interpretation of the rules, permitted manufacturers of products subject to the marketing rules in
Section 2.805 to display and advertise those products following the procedures in Section 2.803.

Discussion

     6.  In the Notice, the Commission recognized concerns raised by the EIA/CEG and parties
replying to its petition that the current marketing rules contain inconsistencies and unnecessary
restrictions that are causing confusion for the electronics industry, with the result that equipment
vendors are being denied opportunities to promote their products to potential customers.  In
considering this matter, the Commission also expressed concern regarding the possibility that
significant interference and enforcement problems could result if non-compliant devices were sold
or provided to the general public.  The Commission therefore proposed a number of rule changes
intended to provide for significant harmonization of the marketing rules and elimination of
unnecessary restrictions, while at the same time addressing its concerns regarding interference and
enforcement.  These changes would:

       Permit the advertising and display of all RF devices, including those subject to the
     verification procedure, prior to completion of the equipment authorization requirements;

       Permit RF devices to be offered for sale, prior to completion of the equipment
     authorization requirements, to all parties other than the general public, i.e., business,
     commercial, industrial, scientific, and medical users, provided:  1) the devices are in the
     conceptual, developmental, design or preproduction stage; 2) the prospective buyer is
     advised in writing at the time of announcement or offer for sale that the devices are subject
     to the Commission's rules; and 3) the equipment complies with the appropriate rules,
     including completion of the equipment authorization requirements, prior to delivery to the
     buyer or centers of distribution;

       Permit any RF device to be operated for compliance testing, demonstration at a trade
     show, or evaluation of product performance and determination of customer acceptability at
     the manufacturer's facilities or at a business, commercial, industrial, scientific or medical
     user's site during the development, design or preproduction stages;

       Require products which are advertised, displayed at trade shows or operated and evaluated
     at a customer's location prior to testing or authorization to be accompanied by a conspicuous
     notice warning that the product has not been authorized and may not be sold or leased until
     such authorization is obtained; and,

       Permit products subject to verification to be tested for compliance at the installation site
     of a business, commercial, industrial, scientific or medical user, provided the purchase or
     lease agreement includes a proviso that such a determination of compliance be made by the
     party responsible for verification of the equipment.

     7.  The Commission generally is adopting herein the proposals contained in the Notice,
taking into account several minor modifications suggested by commenting parties.  These new
regulations will harmonize the marketing rules for all RF devices, remove certain inconsistencies
in the existing rules, and eliminate unnecessary regulations.  However, these changes to the
regulations do not in any manner alter the Commission's longstanding prohibition against the sale
or provision of equipment to the general public prior to a demonstration of compliance with the
appropriate technical standards and authorization under the applicable equipment authorization
procedure.  The Commission continues to believe that it is unrealistic to permit consumer devices
to be offered for sale to potentially millions of people and expect the delivery of the devices to be
delayed while awaiting the Commission authorizations.  The enforcement of such a program would
be unmanageable.  The Commission therefore believes that these amendments to the regulations will
not result in an unacceptable risk of interference or enforcement problems due to the operation of
non-compliant products.  A discussion of each aspect of the new marketing rules is provided below.

Announcement and Offer for Sale

     8.  In the Notice, the Commission proposed to apply the marketing provisions in Section
2.803 of the rules, which permit advertising and display of products prior to completion of the
equipment authorization requirements, to all RF devices, including those subject to the verification
procedure.  It further proposed to permit, prior to completion of the equipment authorization
requirements, all RF devices to be offered for sale to business, commercial, industrial, scientific, and
medical users, subject to certain conditions.  These conditions are that:  1) the devices are in the
conceptual, developmental, design or preproduction stage; 2) the prospective buyer is advised in
writing at the time of announcement or offer for sale that the devices are subject to the Commission's
rules; and 3) the equipment will comply with the appropriate rules, including completion of the
equipment authorization requirements, prior to delivery to the buyer or to centers of distribution.

     9.  Comments.  The comments generally support the proposals to expand the rule permitting
the advertising and display of products, prior to authorization, to encompass all RF devices and to
permit RF devices to be offered for sale, but not delivered, to parties other than the general public
prior to authorization.  Ericsson Corporation (Ericsson) states that these proposals will protect the
public by ensuring that 1) prospective purchasers are aware that certain items of equipment are not
yet compliant with the Commission's rules; and 2) no RF device is delivered until it has been
authorized.  Uniden America Corporation (Uniden) states that the proposals in the Notice would
allow for a more consistent policy on the marketing of RF devices.  Itron, Inc. (Itron) adds that the
prohibition against the offer for sale to the general public adequately addresses the Commission's
concerns regarding interference and enforcement problems while simultaneously facilitating the
marketing of RF products.  The Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV)
opposes the proposal to permit RF devices to be offered for sale prior to authorization, arguing that
businesses that have pre-purchased equipment are unlikely to wait for months, or longer, for delivery
pending resolution of technical problems.  MSTV believes that this proposal will place
manufacturers under intense pressure to deliver devices prior to Commission authorization.

     10.  The Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturer's Association (CBEMA) requests
that the phrase "not to the general public" be clarified with regard to the methods through which
announcements of pre-authorized equipment may be made to business or commercial users. 
CBEMA assumes that the phrase was intended to describe the announcements and not the media
through which these announcements are made.  CBEMA believes that the target of the
announcement or offer for sale, not the medium through which it is made, should be the determining
factor in demonstrating that marketing is not being promoted to the general public.  International
Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and Northern Telecom Inc. (Northern Telecom) propose that
the Commission further amend its rules to permit the sale of prototype devices to a limited class of
users for "beta" testing and for complementary product development of software and associated
hardware products.  IBM complains that the current rules effectively prohibit manufacturers from
charging for prototypes they provide to product developers.  It believes that permitting pre-
authorization sales would permit direct recovery of the cost of its prototype units.

     11.  Decision.  The Commission is adopting its proposal to allow all RF devices to be
advertised, displayed and offered for sale prior to authorization.  In addition to making the rules
consistent for all RF devices, these provisions will assist industry efforts to introduce new products
more promptly.  The current rules already permit the announcement and offer for sale, prior to
authorization, of digital devices subject to authorization under the verification procedure and of ISM
devices under the same conditions proposed in the Notice, and there have been no indications that
these provisions have been abused by any manufacturer.  In adopting its marketing rules in 1970,
the Commission emphasized that its actions were designed to stop mass-marketed devices from
reaching the general public before a grant of equipment authorization had been obtained.  It
therefore rejected a request to permit RF devices to be sold, but not delivered, to the general public
before a determination of compliance and authorization of the equipment.  The revised rules the
Commission is adopting herein continues this prohibition and thus will facilitate manufacturers'
marketing efforts without increasing the possibility of harmful interference to other radio services. 
Further, the Commission does not agree with MSTV that manufacturers will feel pressure to deliver
pre-purchased devices which have not been authorized by the Commission. 

     12.  The Commission does not agree entirely with CBEMA that the target of the offer for
sale, and not the medium through which the offer is made, should be the determining factor in
demonstrating that marketing is not being promoted to the general public.  Although the Commission
agrees that the actual party to whom the equipment is offered for sale or sold should be the final
determining factor on whether equipment is properly marketed, it also notes that the type of audience
reached by an advertiser is largely dependent on the medium through which the offer is made. 
Thus, the responsible party must exercise due caution in both the selection of the medium and the
presentation employed in the offer for sale.  To provide additional clarity regarding the prohibition
against marketing to the general public, the regulations will specifically prohibit the offer for sale
of pre-authorized equipment to end users located in a residential environment and to any parties
other than business, commercial, industrial, scientific or medical users.  To avoid confusion about
whether an "announcement" for sale constitutes an actual offer for sale, the Commission is also
removing the reference to announcements for sale.

     13.  The Commission does not agree with IBM and Northern Telecom that the rules should
permit the pre-authorization sale of prototype devices for "beta" testing and for complementary
product development of software and associated hardware products.  In the event that a product was
found not to comply with the appropriate standards after sale and delivery, it could be very difficult
for the manufacturer to recover a product from the purchaser.   Thus, permitting such sales could
allow into the marketplace a significant number of products that have not been demonstrated to
comply with the appropriate standards.  In addition, providing these prototype products without
concluding a sale permits other parties to develop software and hardware that will be marketed and
used with the prototype products.  Thus, prohibiting the sale of prototype devices should not present
an unreasonable economic burden to equipment manufacturers.  The Commission will not, therefore,
permit the pre-authorization sale of prototype products for "beta" testing or for complementary
product development of software and associated hardware products.

Operation Prior to Authorization

     14.  In the Notice, the Commission proposed to harmonize its equipment marketing rules by
extending to all RF devices the current provisions that allow limited operation of digital devices and
ISM devices before the equipment has been authorized.  Under this proposal, it would be
permissible to operate RF devices that had not yet been authorized:  1) for compliance testing; 2) for
demonstrations at trade shows; 3) for evaluation of product performance at the manufacturer's
facilities during the development, design or preproduction stages; and 4) for evaluation of product
performance and customer acceptability at a business, commercial, industrial, scientific, or medical
user's site during the development, design or preproduction stages.  The Commission indicated,
however, that these types of operations would still be subject to any station licensing requirements
currently specified under the rules and in 47 USC 301.

     15.  Comments.  Most of the commenting parties support the proposal to allow limited
operation of equipment prior to completion of the applicable equipment authorization requirements. 
For example, Alcatel Network Systems, Inc. (ANS) states that pre-compliance operation is necessary
to determine empirically if an RF device will work as contemplated, to "de-bug" the device before
it is sold, to ascertain customer acceptability, and to allow new products to be displayed at annual
trade shows.  Itron indicates that these proposals will enhance the ability of manufacturers to
evaluate product performance and assess customer satisfaction.  The Mobile and Personal
Communications Private Radio Section of the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
believes the proposals to allow demonstrations at trade shows and evaluations for customer
acceptability at a user's site is particularly important to industry.  TIA states that it is important that
pre-authorized products be shown at trade shows and demonstrations so that the industry can make
educated decisions as to which equipment will best meet the needs of their customers.  

     16.  To address the possibility that the operation of untested, pre-authorized products could
result in harmful interference to other radio services, some of the commenting parties suggest that
additional limitations be placed on operations that take place prior to completion of the authorization
requirements.  For example, MSTV suggests that manufacturers be required to certify to the
Commission that on-site testing is the only feasible means of determining compliance before
undertaking delivery of an pre-authorized device to a customer's place of business.  MSTV also
recommends that testing of standard electronic office equipment, e.g., printers, should not be eligible
for evaluation at a customer's site.  AT&T Corporation (AT&T) and CBEMA contend that
allowing manufacturers to determine acceptability at a customer's site and limiting the devices
eligible for such testing based on size or unique capability is likely to be ineffective in preventing
the proliferation of devices that could cause potentially harmful interference because of the lack of
specificity.  They argue that an excessive number of such devices could be placed with users. 
AT&T and CBEMA suggest that the Commission place a limit on the number of devices that can
be operated prior to authorization, e.g., 200 units of any given model of equipment.  They state that
the Commission should also indicate that it will consider granting waivers of this numerical limit. 
AT&T also argues that the Commission should not permit the operation of intentional radiators at
trade shows unless an experimental license has been obtained and also should not allow the
evaluation of Class A digital devices at a customer's site.  AT&T, CBEMA and MSTV also argue
that the Commission needs to provide a better distinction between business and residential sites. 
They indicate that, because of the increase in telecommuting and individuals operating businesses
in homes, the dividing line between business and residential sites is blurred and may no longer be
a practical divider for the Commission to use for the marketing rules.

     17.  In reply comments, ANS opposes MSTV's proposal that manufacturers be required to
certify to the Commission that on-site testing is the only feasible method of determining compliance,
arguing that this additional requirement would not streamline the process, but would create a still
more burdensome and bureaucratic process.   MSTV and ANS support AT&T and CBEMA's
suggestion for a limit on the number of devices that can be placed in operation prior to
authorization.  However, IBM opposes such a numerical limitation, maintaining that this would
result in numerous waiver requests that would be an administrative burden both to the Commission
and to industry.

     18.  Some of the comments reflect the belief that the proposed rules would still require that
experimental licenses be obtained for pre-authorization operation of Part 15 devices.  For example,
EIA/CEG and ANS suggest exempting from further licensing those RF devices that will eventually
be authorized under Part 15.  MSTV contends that the current regulations, which require an
operator to obtain temporary or experimental authority before operating unlicensed Part 15 devices,
are entirely appropriate.  According to MSTV, licenses provide a mechanism for tracking potential
sources of interference.  AT&T proposes that the Commission require manufacturers to obtain an
experimental license to operate an pre-authorized intentional radiator.  However, EIA/CEG and
Northern Telecom disagree, arguing that requiring an experimental license for Part 15 products
operated at trade shows or exhibitions would defeat the streamlining and consistency of the
marketing rules being sought in this rule making.  EIA/CEG adds that AT&T does not offer any
evidence that actual harm would occur.  Northern Telecom anticipates that the large increase in the
volume of experimental license applications would strain the Commission's resources.  EIA/CEG
also asks that the Commission permit, prior to authorization, demonstrations of equipment at
exhibitions other than trade shows. 

     19.  Decision.  The Commission believes that its original proposal regarding the operation
of RF equipment prior to compliance with the equipment authorization requirements generally will
provide an appropriate balance of the concerns raised.  This plan will provide increased flexibility
for manufacturers to develop products cooperatively with the customers while also maintaining
sufficient control over the marketing of RF products to ensure that there will be no unacceptable risk
of increased interference to other radio services.  The Commission does not believe that the
additional restrictions suggested by some commenting parties are necessary, including certification
that on-site testing is the only feasible means of determining compliance or limits on the number of
products that can be operated prior to authorization.  The Commission concludes that it would be
overly burdensome to insist that manufacturers certify that no other alternative is feasible for
determining compliance other than at a customer's site.  It also agrees with IBM that placing a limit
on the number of products would add to the administrative burden for both industry and
Government.  However, the Commission concurs with AT&T, CBEMA and MSTV that a better
distinction between business and residential sites should be made.  Thus, the rules being adopted
restrict operation at a user's site to non-residential locations, thereby excluding operation at
businesses located within a residence.  The rules also limit operation prior to completion of the
equipment authorization requirements to products that are in the development, design or
preproduction stages, and prohibit the marketing of products that are being evaluated under these
circumstances.  These restrictions will serve to limit the interference potential of products that will
be operated under this provision.  To further alleviate the concerns expressed by some of the
commenting parties that the operation of products prior to authorization could result in interference
to other radio services, the Commission is amending Section 2.803(e) to clarify that operation is only
permitted on a non-interference basis.

     20.  As proposed in the Notice, the amended rules will specify that station licenses or
operating licenses are still required for devices operating under rule sections which require such
station licensing.  However, several categories of products, including equipment operating under
Part 15 and some transmission systems operating under Part 95, do not require a station license.  The
Commission sees no justification for requiring a license to be obtained to operate these  products for
compliance testing, demonstrations, or evaluation of product performance, even if those products
are still in the developmental stage, and is so amending its regulations.  This change to the
regulations will result in a decrease in the number of applications for experimental and
developmental licenses.  In the case where a license is required for operation, the Commission would
be able to issue a station license, a special temporary authority for the service in which the
equipment would normally operate, or an experimental/developmental license obtained under Part 5
of the rules.

     21.  The Commission agrees with EIA/CEG that the ability to demonstrate products at a trade
show should be expanded to include other types of exhibitions.  It is concerned, however, about
allowing unrestricted operation at any general "exhibition" without placing some limits on what that
term might include.  The Commission recognizes that residential environments, with their high
density and widespread use of radio receivers, generally are the locations where interference is more
likely to occur.  Accordingly, the rules will permit the operation of an RF device prior to a
demonstration of compliance or authorization at trade shows and at exhibitions which are conducted
at business, commercial, industrial, scientific, or medical locations.  However, under no
circumstances may such demonstrations or exhibitions be conducted in residential environments.

Advisory Notice

     22.  In the Notice, the Commission proposed to require that products which, prior to testing
or authorization, are advertised, displayed at trade shows or operated and evaluated at a customer's
location, be accompanied by a conspicuous notice warning that the product has not been authorized
and may not be marketed until such authorization is obtained.  The specific language proposed in
the Notice for the disclaimer notice was:

     This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications
     Commission.  This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased,
     until authorization is obtained.

This proposed notice is essentially identical to the notice currently required under Section 2.803 of
the rules for products that are advertised or displayed prior to a demonstration of compliance or
authorization.

     23.  Comments.  AT&T, CBEMA, and IBM argue that the proposed language for the
advisory notice is ambiguous because it does not clearly apply to equipment subject to verification.
   CBEMA suggests that the advisory language should be clarified by adding to the end of the
proposed advisory notice the phrase "or compliance established, as required by the applicable
requirements."  IBM suggests that the advisory notice read: "This device has not demonstrated
compliance with the radio frequency emissions standards established by the Federal
Communications Commission.  This device may not be sold, offered for sale, or delivered to the
general public until compliance determination is complete and any necessary FCC authorization is
obtained."  EIA/CEG submits that the language contained in the proposed advisory notice appears
to be inconsistent with other sales activity provisions proposed in the Notice, i.e., the proposals in
Section 2.803(b) and (d) which, under certain conditions, permit announcement and offer for sale,
but not delivery, prior to authorization, and recommends that the language be modified to eliminate
these inconsistencies.  Finally, IBM suggests that an alternate notice should be permitted for the
display and/or demonstration of a prototype of a product where the prototype has not been authorized
but the final assembly version of the product has been authorized.

     24.  Decision.  The Commission does not agree with the commenting parties that the
language in the proposed advisory notice is ambiguous for products subject to authorization under
the verification procedure.  Verification, and the new declaration of conformity, are equipment
authorization procedures, even though a grant of equipment authorization is not issued by the
Commission.  Further, the Commission does not agree with IBM that the notice should also caution
against delivery to the general public.  Under certain limited conditions, delivery is permitted prior
to authorization or a demonstration of compliance.  Accordingly, the Commission is adopting the
advisory language that was proposed in the Notice.

     25.  The Commission agrees with EIA/CEG that, under certain conditions, the language in
the advisory notice runs the risk of inconsistent construction with the provisions being adopted that
permit marketing prior to authorization.  Specifically, this language could conflict with the
provisions permitting limited marketing to wholesalers and retailers or to certain business,
commercial, industrial, scientific or medical users.  Accordingly, the rules governing these limited
marketing provisions are being amended to clarify that this advisory notice is not required when
these marketing conditions are met.  Further, at their option manufacturers advertising products or
displaying products at trade shows prior to authorization may add additional language to the advisory
notice to describe these limited marketing provisions.

     26.  The Commission agrees with IBM that different language for the advisory notice is
appropriate when the product being demonstrated or displayed is a prototype that is not authorized
but the actual product being marketed is properly authorized.  In many cases, manufacturers continue
to use prototypes for display or demonstration proposes, even after obtaining authorization of the
final product.  If the prototype is consistent with the equipment that was authorized, the prototype
may be labelled as authorized and could be marketed without a disclaimer notice.  However, if the
prototype is not consistent with the product that was authorized, it may not be displayed or marketed
except under the conditions being adopted in this Report and Order, including any applicable
condition for licensing.  Accordingly, the Commission is adopting an alternate advisory notice to
address the specific situation raised by IBM.  The alternate language for such prototype devices will
be "Prototype.  Not for Sale."  However, parties displaying prototypes of authorized products may
use additional language, if desired.

On-site Verification

     27.  In the Notice, the Commission proposed to permit products subject to verification that
are sold to business, commercial, industrial, scientific or medical users (but not to the general public)
to be measured to demonstrate compliance at the customer's location after sale and installation,
provided the purchase or lease agreement includes a proviso that such a determination of compliance
be made and is the obligation of the party responsible for verification of the equipment.  Only
MSTV specifically commented on this proposal, stating that the incidence of equipment failing post-
sale, post-installation testing is likely to be low, and that the Commission should limit this rule to
industrial, medical and scientific purchasers.  However, many of the comments of other parties
addressing the proposal to permit operation prior to authorization, above, indirectly apply to this
issue.

     28.  Decision.  As indicated in the discussion above on operation prior to authorization, the
Commission does not believe that further limitations to its marketing rules, including numerical
limits, are needed.  However, it concurs with the comments from AT&T, CBEMA and MSTV that
there needs to be a better distinction between business and residential sites.  Thus, the rules being
adopted restrict operation at a business, commercial, industrial, scientific or medical user's site to
non-residential locations.  Further, the rules being adopted will limit such operation to products
subject to authorization under the verification procedure, as proposed in the Notice.  Currently, the
products authorized under the verification procedure are digital devices other than personal
computers and peripherals to personal computers, ISM devices other than consumer devices,
broadcast receivers, and other Part 15 devices that are not expected to pose a significant interference
risk.   Verified digital devices and ISM devices are already permitted to be measured to
demonstrate compliance with the standards after installation, and there has been no indication that
this provision has resulted in interference or other problems.  Thus, the Commission does not
believe that the addition of other Part 15 devices already subject to authorization under the
verification procedure would increase the risk of harmful interference being caused to other radio
services.  Accordingly, the Commission is amending the rules to permit products subject to
verification to be sold to business, commercial, industrial, scientific or medical users, but not to other
parties or to any user located in a residential environment, and measured for compliance at such
customers' sites after installation, provided the purchase or lease agreement includes a proviso that
such a determination of compliance be made and is the obligation of the party responsible for
verification of the equipment.

Application of the Marketing Requirements to All RF Devices

     29.  In the Notice, the Commission proposed to apply the new, harmonized marketing
provisions to all RF devices regardless of the rule part under which the devices operate.  We also
requested comments on whether it might be desirable to exclude devices subject to authorization
under the type acceptance procedure from the scope of the proposed rule change.  EIA/CEG, Itron,
TIA, IBM, AMSC Subsidiary Corporation (AMSC), and ANS state that the new rules should apply
to all RF devices.  Itron points out that, by prohibiting the sale of RF products to the general public
prior to their authorization, the proposed rules adequately address the potential for the creation of
significant interference and enforcement problems that might be associated with any type of
equipment.  Northern Telecom adds that manufacturers have the same marketing needs for devices
subject to authorization under type acceptance as they do for other devices.  CBEMA supports
applying the new marketing rules to all unintentional radiators.  E. F. Johnson Company (E. F.
Johnson), however, argues that the new rules, specifically those permitting the announcement and
offer for sale, demonstrations at trade shows, and evaluation at the user's site prior to authorization,
should not apply to devices subject to type acceptance since these devices operate in services where
frequency use is highly coordinated.  MSTV also opposes the application of the new rules to
devices subject to type acceptance, noting that the Commission adopted different authorization
procedures because of differences in the potential to cause harmful interference.

     30.  Decision.  The Commission continues to believe that it is appropriate to apply the new
marketing rules to all types of radio equipment.  The regulations being adopted will provide
maximum marketing flexibility to equipment manufacturers while limiting the potential for harmful
interference to other radio services that could be caused from the operation of non-compliant
products.  As discussed above, various restrictions have been placed on when, where, and how
products may be operated, advertised, displayed or marketed prior to testing or authorization.  In
addition, licenses from the Commission and frequency coordination will still be required in many
cases before operation is permitted.  The new marketing rules will not apply to consumer devices
because it would not be realistic to permit consumer devices to be offered for sale to potentially
millions of people who would then have to await Commission authorization prior to delivery of the
devices.  Therefore,  no RF devices may be offered for sale to the general public prior to compliance
with all of the standards, including the equipment authorization requirements.  The Commission
believes that all these restrictions are sufficient to alleviate the concerns expressed by E. F. Johnson
and MSTV regarding any increased potential for harmful interference from type accepted devices. 
Accordingly, the new regulations are being applied to all radio frequency devices addressed under
the rules, including type accepted devices.

Importation Rules

     31.  Under the current rules, radio frequency devices that have not been authorized may only
be imported in limited quantities for testing and evaluation or demonstrations at industry trade
shows.  Ericsson and Northern Telecom suggest that devices being marketed or operated under the
new rules being adopted in this Report and Order may be imported in unlimited quantities.  AT&T
disagrees, arguing that the Commission did not intend to permit the importation of unlimited
quantities of "non-compliant" devices for market acceptability testing.  It adds that the
Commission, in the Notice, did not propose any change to the importation rules.

     32.  Decision.  The Commission does not agree with Ericsson and Northern Telecom that
Section 2.803 should be amended to remove the current restrictions on importation.  Such a change
would permit the importation of an unlimited number of products that have not been tested to
demonstrate compliance with the standards or have not been authorized under the appropriate
equipment authorization procedure.  If such products were later found to be non-compliant with the
standards, it might be impossible to recover them, with the result that significant interference
problems could develop for other radio operations.  The Commission therefore affirms that it is
retaining the current regulations regarding the importation of RF products, as set forth in Part 2,
Subpart K of the rules.  These regulations place strict limits on the number of pre-authorized
products that can be imported for testing, evaluation, or display at trade shows.  These importation
limits, combined with the relaxation of the marketing rules, will still provide foreign manufacturers
with sufficient flexibility to display and promote their products.  The Commission is amending the
new Section 2.803 of the rules to clarify that the importation conditions specified in Subpart K of
Part 2 of the rules also apply to imported products.


                  EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZATION RULES

Discussion

     33.  In the Notice, the Commission proposed changes to the equipment authorization rules
in Subpart J of Part 2 to resolve inconsistencies and remove unnecessary restrictions.  These
proposals addressed the modification of authorized devices, the definition of an electrically-identical
product for which the trade name or model number is modified by the grantee, the retention of
records for verified devices in the responsible party's files, and the submission to the Commission
of data or samples for verified devices.   The Commission also proposed to modify the rules, for
purposes of clarification, to state explicitly that, as with any request for authorization, an anti-drug
abuse statement is required with requests for permissive changes.  It further proposed to amend the
rules to indicate that proper labelling of a product is a condition of the grant of equipment
authorization and that such labelling is required prior to marketing.  In addition, the Commission
proposed to remove outdated regulations, such as references to type approval, which is no longer
employed; to combine duplicative rules into single rule sections; and to correct erroneous rule
citations.  These issues are addressed in the following paragraphs.

Modification of Authorized Devices

     34.  As indicated in the Notice, it has become a fairly common practice for RF devices,
especially those intended for sale to the general public, to be modified by someone other than the
grantee of the equipment authorization or, for verified products or products subject to a declaration
of conformity, the manufacturer or importer.  Except for products authorized under the certification
procedure, the regulations specifically permit modifications to be performed by other parties
provided the equipment continues to comply with the standards.  However, according to the
regulations the holder of a grant of notification or type acceptance remains responsible for ensuring
that the equipment continues to comply with the appropriate standards, even if the equipment is
modified by an independent party.  For products subject to authorization under the verification
procedure or under a declaration of conformity, the responsible party is the manufacturer, if the
manufacturer is located within the U.S., or the importer, if the product is imported.  In the Notice,
the Commission observed that it is not realistic to require the grantee or the manufacturer or importer
to accept responsibility for ensuring that the equipment continues to comply with the standards when
that product is modified by an independent party.  Similarly, it seems unreasonable to require the
grantee, manufacturer or importer to retain measurement data and other records demonstrating that
the product, as modified by a separate party, continues to comply with the standards.  In order to
address this issue, the Commission proposed to specify that a party modifying an authorized product
is responsible for ensuring that the modified product continues to comply with the applicable rules. 
It further proposed that the party performing the modifications be required to label the modified
product with its name, address and telephone number to facilitate identification of the new
responsible party.  In addition, the Commission proposed to require that the responsible party
maintain copies of all records describing the product and demonstrating compliance with the
appropriate standards.

     35.  Comments.  IBM and TIA agree with our assessment in the Notice that it is not realistic
to hold equipment manufacturers responsible for compliance once others have modified equipment. 
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) generally supports the proposals but is concerned that
companies that routinely modify equipment may not have sufficient incentive to seek the proper
authorization once a device is modified.  NAB urges the Commission to ensure that its regulations
have sufficient "teeth" to act as a deterrent to those that would offer pre-authorized devices for sale. 
General Electric Lighting (GEL) also agrees with the proposed changes but cautions that the
definition of the responsible party should be more precise.  GEL points out that the rules permit a
grantee to license or otherwise authorize a second party to manufacture or market the equipment
covered by the responsible party's grant.  In order to avoid the situation where a purchaser of this
equipment may inappropriately claim such an authorization, GEL and ANS request that the
Commission require this licensing or authorization to be in writing.  CBEMA and ANS oppose the
proposal to require the modifying party to include additional information on the FCC Identifier label,
i.e., the name, address and telephone number of the modifying party.  They argue that this
additional information is not consistent with the FCC identification program which does not require
the name of the grantee, manufacturer or any other party; only the FCC Identifier is required. 
AT&T, with support from ANS, CBEMA, and IBM, indicates that these changes to the rules could
be interpreted to require anyone modifying a device to obtain the original design drawings from the
grantee, manufacturer or importer.  AT&T requests that the requirement to retain the original design
drawings apply only to those drawings regarding modifications and changes to the original product.

     36.  Decision.  As proposed, the party performing the modifications will be responsible for
ensuring continued compliance with the regulations and will be required to relabel the product with
its name, address and telephone number in order to identify clearly the new responsible party.  As
stated in the Notice, it is not realistic to hold a manufacturer responsible for the compliance of its
equipment if that equipment has been modified by some other party.  As long as the name, address
and telephone number of the modifying party is on the modified product, the Commission will be
able to identify the responsible party.  We believe that there are also sufficient "teeth" under the
current rules to ensure that a company that modifies products will obtain a new grant of
authorization, when required.  The marketing of equipment modified by any party who fails to
perform these necessary steps would violate the marketing rules.  Such violations could subject the
modifying party to monetary and equipment forfeitures.  The Commission does not agree with
ANS and GEL that the rules need to be amended to require that any licensing or authorization by a
grantee to a second party to manufacture a product be in writing.  A party that modifies an authorized
product, even a modification falling within the purview of a Class I permissive change, becomes
responsible for the compliance of that product, unless there is a specific authorization from the
grantee (or manufacturer or importer for verified products or products authorized under a declaration
of conformity) permitting the modifications, i.e., the grantee of the product continues to accept
responsibility for the modified product.  If that authorization is not in writing, the party performing
the modifications does so at its own risk of becoming responsible for the modified product.  

     37.  As indicated, ANS and CBEMA object to the Commission requiring the modifying party
to label the modified product with its name, address and telephone number.  Such labelling will not
be required if the modifying party obtains a new equipment authorization.  For equipment
authorized under the certification procedure, changes or modifications performed by a party other
than the grantee already require a new application for, and grant of, certification.  Accordingly, the
proposals in this proceeding that the party modifying a product place its name, address and telephone
number on the product would not apply to certified products or to any product for which a new
authorization is obtained by the party performing the modifications.  The Commission is amending
its proposed rules to reflect this qualification.  Finally, the Commission agrees with the comments
from ANS, AT&T, CBEMA and IBM that parties modifying products should not be required to
obtain the original design drawings from the grantee, manufacturer or importer.  Rather, these parties
will be required to retain only those drawings regarding the modifications or changes made to the
original product.  The Commission is amending Section 2.938 of its rules to incorporate this change.

Electrically Identical Equipment

     38.  In the Notice, the Commission proposed to clarify the use of the term "electrically
identical" in the rule that permits a grantee to change the model/type numbers and trade names of
electrically identical products without notifying the Commission.   Specifically, it proposed to
clarify that equipment would be deemed electrically identical if no changes are made to the
equipment, as authorized, or if any modifications or changes to that equipment could be treated as
Class I permissive changes under the type acceptance or certification rules.   The commenting
parties who addressed this proposal supported it.  Accordingly, the Commission is adopting the
clarification of the term "electrically identical," as proposed.

Retention of Records for Verified Devices

     39.  In the Notice, the Commission proposed to specify in the rules the information that must
be retained for an authorization under verification.  The information retention requirements currently
are spelled out in a Public Notice.  ANS and IBM support the proposed record retention rules. 
IBM asserts that complete documentation is an essential part of the Commission's compliance
scheme.  AT&T opposes this proposal, arguing that specifying the information to be retained would
be counterproductive because Commission action would be needed to modify the required
information.  AT&T adds that under the current rules the information retention requirements could
be readily changed under authority delegated to the Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology. 

     40.  In order to ensure that all parties retain the appropriate records for verified equipment,
the Commission believes that these information retention requirements should be set forth clearly
in the rules.  As indicated in the Notice, the information proposed to be included in the rules is the
same verification information that has been required since February 29, 1988.  Currently, the
measurement procedure in which the record retention requirements are described is incorporated by
reference into the regulations along with the publication date of the procedure.  Incorporation into
the rules of a new version of that measurement procedure thus would be subject to the procedures
specified under the Administrative Procedure Act.  The Commission also notes that this
measurement procedure only applies to products operated under Part 15.  However, some products
operated under Part 18 of the rules are also subject to authorization under the verification procedure. 
The record retention requirements for verified Part 18 devices are described only in the Public Notice
mentioned above.  Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the information retention
requirements should be specified in the regulations and is amending the rules as proposed.

     41.  As an additional point, CBEMA, with agreement from AT&T, also requests that verified
devices be excluded from inclusion under the record retention requirements in 47 CFR Section
2.938, adding that the record retention requirements for verified devices are already addressed in
Section 2.955.  The Commission sees no apparent inconsistencies or additional information
gathering or storage requirements from including verified products under Section 2.938 as well as
under Section 2.955.  Any product that meets the record retention requirements in Section 2.955 will
also comply with the requirements in Section 2.938.  These two sections are not necessarily
duplicative.  Section 2.938 contains a general requirement to maintain copies of the design drawings,
test procedures and measurement data, whereas Section 2.955 contains detailed requirements as to
the exact records that must be maintained for products authorized under the verification procedure. 
For equipment authorization procedures where a grant of authorization is issued by the Commission,
similar detailed information requirements are specified under the application filing requirements. 
However, no application for a grant of equipment authorization is submitted for verified equipment. 
Rather, this information is retained by the responsible party.  The Commission, however, is
amending Section 2.938(c) to reflect the existing requirements regarding how long records must be
retained for different equipment authorization procedures.

Other Issues

     42.  The Commission also proposed two additional clarifications to the rules:  1) as with any
request for authorization, an anti-drug abuse statement is required with requests for permissive
changes; and 2) proper labelling of a product is a condition of the grant of equipment authorization
and such labelling is required prior to marketing.  In addition, the Commission proposed to remove
outdated regulations, such as references to type approval, which is no longer employed; to combine
duplicative rules into single rule sections; and to correct erroneous rule citations.  No comments were
filed in response to these proposals.  The Commission continues to believe that these changes are
desirable and adopts them as proposed in the Notice.

     43.  Several other rule sections in Part 2 contain errors.  These sections, and the changes
being made, are:

     Section 2.925(b)(4) and (f):  remove the colon (":") from between the label "FCC ID" and
     the FCC Identifier, consistent with Section 2.925(a) and (b).

     Section 2.929(b)(1):  clarify that the "name and number" referenced in the rules refers to the
     FCC Identifier.

     Section 2.933(a) and (c):  clarify that a change in identification requiring a new application
     for equipment authorization refers to a change in the FCC Identifier.

     Section 2.936(a):  clarify the specific sections referencing a grant of equipment authorization.

     Section 2.941(a):  clarify that only information regarding applications for a grant of
     equipment authorization are readily available from the Commission.

     Section 2.954:  delete the reference to type approval.

     Section 2.955(a)(3)(vii):  indicate that drawings may be substituted for photographs,
     consistent with current policy.

     Sections 2.983(h) and 2.1033(b)(10):  delete these paragraphs referencing the EBS decoder
     rules which are now addressed in Part 11 of the rules.

Since these changes to the rules involve minor or merely technical amendments, public notice and
comment on these changes are unnecessary pursuant to Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act.

 
                          ADMINISTRATIVE     

     44.  Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603 ("RFA"), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") was
incorporated into the Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("Notice"), in ET Docket No. 94-45.  The
Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the Notice, including the IRFA. 
The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") in this Report and Order
conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996
(CWAAA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). 

     45.  Need For and Objective of the Rules.  Our objectives are to facilitate the marketing and
early use of radio frequency (RF) devices by permitting vendors, manufacturers, and importers to
market such devices prior to a demonstration of compliance with applicable technical standards and
equipment authorization procedures, and to promote efficiency and equity in our rules by requiring
that any party that modifies an RF device be responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable
technical standards.  This action will also facilitate the retrieval of RF device test records by the
Commission, remove outdated regulations, and correct existing errors and ambiguities in the rules.

     46.  Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA. 
No comments were submitted in direct response to the IRFA.  However, Alcatel Network Systems,
Inc. (ANS), AT&T Corp., Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturer's Association (CBEMA)
and International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) suggested changes to our proposed reporting and
record keeping requirements for modified RF devices.  ANS and CBEMA oppose the proposal that
a party modifying equipment be required to label the modified equipment with additional
information, i.e., the name, address and telephone number of the party performing the modifications. 
AT&T, with support from ANS, CBEMA and IBM, requests that the party modifying the equipment
not be required to obtain and retain the original equipment design drawings.

     47.  Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply. 
For the purposes of this Order, the RFA defines a "small business" to be the same as a "small
business concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632, unless the Commission has
developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities.  Under the Small Business
Act, a "small business concern" is one that:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not
dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small
Business Administration (SBA).  These new rules will apply to computer manufacturers and other
RF device manufacturers as well as those entities that modify and market RF equipment.

     (a)  Computer Manufacturers:  According to SBA regulations, a computer manufacturer must
have 1,000 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small entity.  Census Bureau data indicates
that there are 716 firms that manufacture electronic computers and of those, 659 have fewer than 500
employees and qualify as small entities.  The remaining 57 firms have 500 or more employees;
however, we are unable to determine how many of those have fewer than 1,000 employees and
therefore also qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

     (b)  RF Equipment Manufacturers:  The Commission has not developed a definition of small
entities applicable to RF equipment manufacturers.  Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition
applicable to manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment. 
According to the SBA's regulations, an RF equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer
employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.  Census Bureau data indicates that there
are 858 U.S. companies that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications
equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be classified as
small entities.  The Census Bureau category is very broad, and specific figures are not available
as to how many of these firms are manufacturers of RF devices.  However, we believe that many of
them may qualify as small entities.

     48.  The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to services
which are related specifically to RF devices.  Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is
the definition  under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules applicable to Communications
Services, Not Elsewhere Classified.  This definition provides that a small entity is expressed as one
with $11.0 million or less in annual receipts.  The Census Bureau data indicates that of the 848
firms in the "Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified" category, 775 are small
businesses.  We estimate that under this definition the majority of entities that market and modify
RF devices may be small entities.

     49.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements.  Our new rules transfer the responsibility for ensuring that a modified RF device
complies with our technical standards from the vendor, manufacturer, or importer to the modifying
party.  However, requirements to measure the equipment to show that it continues to comply with
these standards are consistent with the former rules.  Further, even under the former rules -- while
they were not clearly defined -- a party modifying an RF device was required to retain its
measurement data showing that the modified device complied with these standards.  A modifying
party must also label the equipment with its name, address and telephone number, unless it obtains
a new authorization for the modified equipment.  The type of skills needed to label equipment is
usually clerical.

     50.  Under our new rules greater flexibility will be provided to vendors, manufacturers, and
importers, thus decreasing the regulatory burden on such entities.  Further, when an RF device is
modified, any increased reporting and record keeping requirement imposed on the modifying party
will be offset by a decreased reporting requirement on the vendor, manufacturer, or importer. 
Moreover, there is no requirement that any RF device be modified.  Therefore, to the extent that a
small entity chooses to modify an RF device, it is because that entity believes the benefits of
modifying the device outweigh its costs, including reporting and record keeping requirements.

     51.  Significant Alternatives and Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on
a Substantial Number of Small Entities Consistent with Stated Objectives.  As proposed in the
Notice, any entity that remanufactures or otherwise modifies an authorized RF device would be
designated as responsible for ensuring that the device continues to comply with our applicable
technical standards, and would be required to retain records of its modification relative to the
original design drawings.  However, after reviewing comments, we conclude that it is unnecessary
for the modifying party to obtain the original design drawings.  Accordingly, in this Report and
Order, we are requiring only that the modifying party retain records showing the changes made to
the device, together with test records demonstrating that the device continues to comply with the
applicable standards.   We also are changing another proposal in the Notice by not requiring that
a modified RF device be labelled with the name, address, and telephone number of the modifying
party, provided the party performing the modifications obtains a new equipment authorization. 
These changes will reduce the impact of our new regulations on small entities.

     52.  Report to Congress.  The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, along with this Report and Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).  A copy of this
FRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.


                         ORDERING CLAUSE

     53.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Part 2 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations
IS AMENDED as specified in Appendix B, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register.  This action is taken pursuant to sections 4(i), 302, 303(c), (f), (g), and (r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 154(i), 302, 303(c), (f), (g), and (r).

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              William F. Caton
                                        Acting Secretary                            APPENDIX A

                        Commenting Parties

1.   Alcatel Network Systems, Inc. (ANS)
2.   AMSC Subsidiary Corporation (AMSC)
3.   Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV)
4.   AT&T Corporation (AT&T)
5.   Computer & Business Equipment Manufacturer's Association (CBEMA)
6.   Digital Microwave Corporation (DMC)
7.   E. F. Johnson Company
8.   Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronic Industries Association (EIA/CEG)
9.   Ericsson Corporation (Ericsson)
10.       General Electric Lighting (GEL)
11.       International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
12.       Itron, Inc. (Itron)
13.       National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
14.       Mobile and Personal Communications Private Radio Section of the Telecommunications
          Industry Association (TIA)
15.       Uniden America Corporation (Uniden)

                          Reply Comments

1.   Alcatel Network Systems, Inc. (ANS)
2.   Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV)
3.   AT&T Corporation (AT&T)
4.   Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronic Industries Association (EIA/CEG)
5.   Ericsson Corporation (Ericsson)
6.   International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
7.   Northern Telecom Inc.
                           APPENDIX B 
                                 
Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2, is amended as follows:

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

     AUTHORITY:  Sections 4, 302, 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 154(i), 302, 303, 303(r), and 307, unless otherwise noted.

2.  Section 2.803 is deleted.

3.  A new Section 2.803 is added to read as follows:

Section 2.803  Marketing of Radio Frequency Devices Prior to Equipment Authorization.

     (a)  Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale
or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of
selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless:

     (1)  In the case of a device subject to type acceptance, certification, or notification, such
device has been authorized by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is
properly identified and labelled as required by  2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter;
or

     (2)  In the case of a device that is not required to have a grant of equipment authorization
issued by the Commission, but which must comply with the specified technical standards prior to
use, such device also complies with all applicable administrative (including verification of the
equipment or authorization under a Declaration of Conformity, where required), technical, labelling
and identification requirements specified in this chapter.

     (b)  The provisions of paragraph (a) do not prohibit conditional sales contracts between
manufacturers and wholesalers or retailers where delivery is contingent upon compliance with the
applicable equipment authorization and technical requirements, nor do they prohibit agreements
between such parties to produce new products, manufactured in accordance with designated
specifications.

     (c)  Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b), above, and paragraphs (d) and
(f) below, a radio frequency device may be advertised or displayed, e.g., at a trade show or
exhibition, prior to equipment authorization or, for devices not subject to the equipment
authorization requirements, prior to a determination of compliance with the applicable technical
requirements provided that the advertising contains, and the display is accompanied by, a
conspicuous notice worded as follows:

     This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications
     Commission.  This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased,
     until authorization is obtained.

     (1)  If the product being displayed is a prototype of a product that has been properly
authorized and the prototype, itself, is not authorized due to differences between the prototype and
the authorized product, the following disclaimer notice may be used in lieu of the notice stated in
paragraph (c) above:

     Prototype.  Not for sale.

     (2)  Except as provided elsewhere in this chapter, devices displayed under the provisions of
this paragraph may not be activated or operated.

     (d)  Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a), the offer for sale solely to business,
commercial, industrial, scientific or medical users (but not an offer for sale to other parties or to end
users located in a residential environment) of a radio frequency device that is in the conceptual,
developmental, design or pre-production stage is permitted prior to equipment authorization or, for
devices not subject to the equipment authorization requirements, prior to a determination of
compliance with the applicable technical requirements provided that the prospective buyer is advised
in writing at the time of the offer for sale that the equipment is subject to the FCC rules and that the
equipment will comply with the appropriate rules before delivery to the buyer or to centers of
distribution.  If a product is marketed in compliance with the provisions of this paragraph, the
product does not need to be labelled with the statement in paragraph (c) of this section.

     (e)  Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a), prior to equipment authorization or
determination of compliance with the applicable technical requirements any radio frequency device
may be operated, but not marketed, for the following purposes and under the following conditions:

     (1)  Compliance testing;

     (2)  Demonstrations at a trade show provided the notice contained in paragraph (c) of this
section is displayed in a conspicuous location on, or immediately adjacent to, the device;

     (3)  Demonstrations at an exhibition conducted at a business, commercial, industrial,
scientific, or medical location, but excluding locations in a residential environment, provided the
notice contained in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, as appropriate, is displayed in a conspicuous
location on, or immediately adjacent to, the device;

     (4)  Evaluation of product performance and determination of customer acceptability,
provided such operation takes place at the manufacturer's facilities during developmental, design or
pre-production states; or

     (5)  Evaluation of product performance and determination of customer acceptability where
customer acceptability of a radio frequency device cannot be determined at the manufacturer's
facilities because of size or unique capability of the device, provided the device is operated at a
business, commercial, industrial, scientific, or medical user's site, but not at a residential site, during
the development, design or pre-production stages.  A product operated under this provision shall be
labelled, in a conspicuous location, with the notice in paragraph (c) of this section.

     (6)  For the purpose of paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(5) of this section, the term "manufacturer's
facilities" includes the facilities of the party responsible for compliance with the regulations and the
manufacturer's premises, as well as the facilities of other entities working under the authorization
of the responsible party in connection with the development and manufacture, but not marketing, of
the equipment.

     (7)  The provisions of paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4), and (e)(5) of this section do not
eliminate any requirements for station licenses for products that normally require a license to
operate, as specified elsewhere in this chapter.  Manufacturers should note that station licenses are
not required for some products, e.g., products operating under Part 15 of this chapter and certain
products operating under Part 95 of this chapter.

     (8)  Marketing, as used in this section, includes sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease,
including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of
selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.

     (9)  Products operating under the provisions of this paragraph shall not be recognized to have
any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any frequency.  Operation is subject to the
conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that any interference received must be
accepted.  Operation shall be required to cease upon notification by a Commission representative
that the device is causing harmful interference and shall not resume until the condition causing the
harmful interference is corrected.

     (f)  For radio frequency devices subject to verification and sold solely to business,
commercial, industrial, scientific, and medical users (excluding products sold to other parties or for
operation in a residential environment), parties responsible for verification of the devices shall have
the option of ensuring compliance with the applicable technical specifications of this chapter at each
end user's location after installation, provided that the purchase or lease agreement includes a proviso
that such a determination of compliance be made and is the responsibility of the party responsible
for verification of the equipment.  If the purchase or lease agreement contains this proviso and the
responsible party has the product measured to ensure compliance at the end user's location, the
product does not need to be labelled with the statement in paragraph (c) of this section.

     (g)  The provisions in paragraphs (b) - (f) of this section apply only to devices that are
designed to comply with, and to the best of the responsible party's knowledge will, upon testing,
comply with all applicable requirements in this chapter.  The provisions in paragraphs (b) - (f) do
not apply to radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the
current rules.  Such devices shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease,
sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under Part 5 of this chapter or a special
temporary authorization issued by the Commission.

     (h)  The provisions in Subpart K of this Part continue to apply to imported radio frequency
devices.

4.  Section 2.805 is deleted.

5.  Section 2.806 is deleted.

6.  Section 2.807 is amended by revising the introductory paragraph, to read as follows:

Section 2.807  Statutory exceptions.

     As provided by Section 302(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,  2.803
shall not be applicable to:

  *              *              *              *              *

7.  Section 2.809 is deleted.  

8.  Section 2.811 is revised to read as follows:

Section 2.811  Transmitters operated under Part 73.

     Section 2.803(a) through (d) shall not be applicable to a transmitter operated in any of the
Radio Broadcast Services regulated under Part 73 of this chapter, provided the conditions set out in
Part 73 of this chapter for the acceptability of such transmitter for use under licensing are met.

9.  Section 2.813 is revised to read as follows:

Section 2.813  Transmitters operated in the Instructional Television Fixed Service.

     Section 2.803(a) through (d) shall not be applicable to a transmitter operated in the
Instructional Television Fixed Service regulated under Part 74 of this chapter, provided the
conditions in  74.952 of this chapter for the acceptability of such transmitter for licensing are met.

10.  Section 2.815 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (e), to read as follows:

Section 2.815  External radio frequency power amplifiers.

  *              *              *              *              *

     (d)  The proscription in paragraph (b) of this section shall not apply to the marketing, as
defined in that paragraph, by a licensed amateur radio operator to another licensed amateur radio
operator of an external radio frequency power amplifier fabricated in not more than one unit of the
same model in a calendar year by that operator provided the amplifier is for the amateur operator's
personal use at his licensed amateur radio station and the requirements of  97.315 and 97.317 of
this chapter are met.

     (e)  The proscription in paragraph (c) of this section shall not apply to the marketing, as
defined in that paragraph, by a licensed amateur radio operator to another licensed amateur radio
operator of an external radio frequency power amplifier if the amplifier is for the amateur operator's
personal use at his licensed amateur radio station and the requirements of  97.315 and 97.317 of
this chapter are met.

11.  Section 2.901 is amended by deleting the references in paragraphs (a) and (b) to "type approval".

12.  Section 2.903 is deleted.

13.  Section 2.909 is amended by adding language to the end of paragraphs (a) and (b) and by adding
new paragraphs (c)(3) and (d) to read as follows:

Section 2.909  Responsible party.

     (a)  *     *     *  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  2.929(b)
of this chapter, the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product
with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter.

     (b)  *     *     *  If subsequent to manufacture and importation, the radio frequency equipment
is modified by any party not working under the authority of the responsible party, the party
performing the modification becomes the new responsible party.

  *              *              *              *              *

     (c)(3)  If the radio frequency equipment is modified by any party not working under the
authority of the responsible party, the party performing the modifications, if located within the U.S.,
or the importer, if the equipment is imported subsequent to the modifications, becomes the new
responsible party.

     (d)  If, because of modifications performed subsequent to authorization, a new party becomes
responsible for ensuring that a product complies with the technical standards and the new party does
not obtain a new equipment authorization, the equipment shall be labelled, following the
specifications in  2.925(d) of this chapter, with the following:  "This product has been modified by
[insert name, address and telephone number of the party performing the modifications]."

14.  Section 2.913 is amended by revising paragraph (a), to read as follows:

Section 2.913  Submittal of equipment authorization application or information to the Commission.

     (a)  Unless otherwise directed, applications with fees attached for the equipment
authorization, pursuant to  1.1103 of this chapter, must be submitted following the procedures
described in  0.401(b) of this chapter.  The address for applications submitted by mail is:  Federal
Communications Commission, Equipment Approval Services, P. O. Box 358315, Pittsburgh, PA 
15251-5315.  If the applicant chooses to make use of an air courier/package delivery service, the
following address must appear on the outside of the package/envelope:  Federal Communications
Commission, c/o Mellon Bank, Three Mellon Bank Center, 525 William Penn Way, 27th floor,
Room 153-2713, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania  15259-0001, Attention:  Wholesale Lockbox Supervisor.

  *              *              *              *              *

15.  Section 2.915 is amended by deleting the reference to "type approval" in paragraphs (a) and (c).

16.  Section 2.917 is amended by deleting paragraph (d).

17.  Section 2.924 is revised to read as follows:

Section 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 from the Commission, provided that such
devices are electrically identical and the equipment bears an FCC Identifier validated by a grant of
equipment authorization.  A device will be considered to be electrically identical if no changes are
made to the device authorized by the Commission, or if the changes made to the device would be
treated as class I permissive changes within the scope of  2.1001(b)(1) and 2.1043(b)(1) of this
chapter.  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  2.933 of this chapter.

18.  Section 2.925 is amended by deleting paragraph (g) and subparagraphs (g)(1)-(g)(3), by revising
subparagraph (b)(4), and by revising paragraphs (d) and (f), to read as follows:

Section 2.925  Identification of equipment.

 *              *              *              *              *

     (b)(4)  For a transceiver, the receiver portion of which is subject to verification pursuant to
 15.101 of this chapter, the FCC Identifier required for the transmitter portion shall be preceded by
the term "FCC ID".

     (c)  [Reserved]

     (d)  In order to validate the grant of equipment authorization, the nameplate or label shall be
permanently affixed to the equipment and shall be readily visible to the purchaser at the time of
purchase.

 *              *              *              *              *


     (f)  The term "FCC ID" and the coded identification assigned by the Commission shall be
in a size of type large enough to be readily legible, consistent with the dimensions of the equipment
and its nameplate.  However, the type size for the FCC Identifier is not required to be larger than
eight-point.

 *              *              *              *              *


19.  Section 2.926 is amended by changing the reference in paragraph (e) from " 15.69" to
" 15.101".

20.  Section 2.927 is amended by deleting paragraph (d) and by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:

Section 2.927  Limitations on grants.

     (a)  A grant of equipment authorization is valid only when the FCC Identifier is permanently
affixed on the device and remains effective until revoked or withdrawn, rescinded, surrendered, or
a termination date is otherwise established by the Commission.

     (b)  A grant of an equipment authorization signifies that the Commission has determined 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 authorization shall not be construed as a finding by
the Commission with respect to matters not encompassed by the Commission's rules, especially with
respect to compliance with 18 U.S.C. 2512.

     (c)  *     *     *

21.  Section 2.929 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1), to read as follows:

Section 2.929  Nonassignability of an equipment authorization.

  *              *              *              *              *

     (b)(1)  The equipment manufactured by such second party bears the identical FCC Identifier
as set out in the grant of the equipment authorization.

     NOTE:  Any change in the FCC Identifier desired as a result of such production or marketing
agreement will require the filing of a new application for an equipment authorization as specified
in  2.933.

  *              *              *              *              *

22.  Section 2.931 is revised to read as follows:

Section 2.931  Responsibility of the grantee.

     In accepting a grant of an equipment authorization, the grantee warrants that each unit of
equipment marketed under such grant and bearing the identification specified in the grant will
conform to the unit that was measured and that the data (design and rated operational characteristics)
determined by the grantee for notification or filed with the application for type acceptance or
certification continues to be representative of the equipment being produced under such grant within
the variation that can be expected due to quantity production and testing on a statistical basis.

23.  Section 2.932 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f), to read as follows:

Section 2.932  Modification of equipment.

  *              *              *              *              *

     (f)  All requests for permissive changes submitted to the Commission must be accompanied
by the anti-drug abuse certification required under  1.2002 of this chapter.

24.  Section 2.933 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) and subparagraph (b)(7) to read as
follows:

Section 2.933  Change in identification of equipment.

     (a)  A new application for equipment authorization 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  2.924 of this chapter is not considered to be a change in identification and does not
require additional authorization from the Commission.

     (b)  *     *     *

  *              *              *              *              *

     (7)  In the case of certified equipment, the photographs required by  2.1033(b)(7) 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 by the
Commission.

     (c)  If the change in the FCC Identifier also involves a change in design or circuitry which
falls outside the purview of a permissive change described in  2.977, 2.1001 or 2.1043, a complete
application shall be filed pursuant to  2.911.

25.  Section 2.934 is amended by changing the reference at the end of the text from " 2.910(b)" to
" 2.913(b)".

26.  Section 2.936 is revised to read as follows:

Section 2.936  FCC inspection.

     Upon reasonable request, each responsible party shall submit the following to the
Commission or shall make the following available for inspection:

     (a)  The records required by  2.938, 2.955, and 2.1075.

     (b)  A sample unit of the equipment covered under an authorization.

     (c)  The manufacturing plant and facilities.

27.  Section 2.938 is revised to read as follows:

Section 2.938  Retention of records.

     (a)  For each equipment subject to the Commission's equipment authorization standards, the
responsible party shall maintain the records listed below:

     (1)  A record of the original design drawings and specifications and all changes that have
been made that may affect compliance with the standards and the requirements of  2.931.

     (2)  A record of the procedures used for production inspection and testing to ensure
conformance with the standards and the requirements of  2.931.

     (3)  A record of the test results that demonstrate compliance with the appropriate regulations.

     (b)  The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall also apply to a manufacturer of
equipment produced under the provisions of  2.929(b) of this chapter.  The retention of the records
by the manufacturer under these circumstances shall satisfy the grantee's responsibility under
paragraph (a) of this section.

     (c)  The records listed in paragraph (a) of this section shall be retained for one year for
equipment subject to authorization under the type acceptance or certification procedure, or for two
years for equipment subject to authorization under any other procedure, after the manufacture of said
equipment has been permanently discontinued, or until the conclusion of an investigation or a
proceeding if the responsible party (or under paragraph (b) of this section the manufacturer) is
officially notified that an investigation or any other administrative proceeding involving its
equipment has been instituted.

     (d)  If radio frequency equipment is modified by any party other than the original responsible
party, and that party is not working under the authorization of the original responsible party, the
party performing the modifications is not required to obtain the original design drawings specified
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.  However, the party performing the modifications must maintain
records showing the changes made to the equipment along with the records required in paragraphs
(a)(3) of this section.  A new equipment authorization may also be required.  See, for example,
 2.909, 2.924, 2.933, and 2.1043.

28.  Section 2.941 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b), to read as follows:

Section 2.941  Availability of information relating to grants.

     (a)  Grants of equipment authorization, other than for receivers and equipment authorized for
use under Part 15 or 18 of this chapter, will be publicly announced in a timely manner by the
Commission.  Information about the authorization of a device using a particular FCC Identifier may
be obtained by contacting the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology Laboratory.

     (b)  Information relating to equipment authorizations, such as data submitted by the applicant
in connection with an authorization application, laboratory tests of the device, etc., shall be available
in accordance with  0.441-0.470 of this chapter.

29.  Section 2.953 is amended by revising the title and paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) to read as follows:

Section 2.953  Responsibility for compliance.

     (a)  In verifying compliance, the responsible party, as defined in  2.909 of this chapter,
warrants that each unit of equipment marketed under the verification procedure will be identical to
the unit tested and found acceptable with the standards and that the records maintained by the
responsible party continue to reflect the equipment being produced under such verification within
the variation that can be expected due to quantity production and testing on a statistical basis.

     (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
 2.955 however should be in the English language and made available to the Commission upon a
reasonable request, in accordance with  2.956 of this chapter.

     (c)  *     *     *

     (d)  Verified equipment shall be reverified if any modification or change adversely affects
the emanation characteristics of the modified equipment.  The party designated in  2.909 of this
chapter bears responsibility for continued compliance of subsequently produced equipment.

30.  Section 2.954 is revised to read as follows:

Section 2.954  Identification.

     Devices subject only to verification shall be uniquely identified by the person responsible
for marketing or importing the equipment within the United States.  However, the identification shall
not be of a format which could be confused with the FCC Identifier required on certified, notified
or type accepted equipment.  The importer or manufacturer shall maintain adequate identification
records to facilitate positive identification for each verified device.

31.  Section 2.955 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and subparagraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

Section 2.955  Retention of records.

     (a)  For each equipment subject to verification, the responsible party, as shown in  2.909
of this chapter, shall maintain the records listed below:

  *              *              *              *              *

     (3)  A record of the measurements made on an appropriate test site that demonstrates
compliance with the applicable regulations.  The record shall:

     (i)  Indicate the actual date all testing was performed.

     (ii)  State the name of the test laboratory, company, or individual performing the verification
testing.  The Commission may request additional information regarding the test site, the test
equipment or the qualifications of the company or individual performing the verification tests.

     (iii)  Contain a description of how the device was actually tested, identifying the
measurement procedure and test equipment that was used.

     (iv)  Contain a description of the equipment under test (EUT) and support equipment
connected to, or installed within, the EUT.

     (v)  Identify the EUT and support equipment by trade name and model number and, if
appropriate, by FCC Identifier and serial number.

     (vi)  Indicate the types and lengths of connecting cables used and how they were arranged
or moved during testing.

     (vii)  Contain at least two drawings or photographs showing the test set-up for the highest
line conducted emission and showing the test set-up for the highest radiated emission.  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.

     (viii)  List all modifications, if any, made to the EUT by the testing company or individual
to achieve compliance with the regulations.

     (ix)  Include all of the data required to show compliance with the appropriate regulations.

     (x)  Contain, on the test report, the signature of the individual responsible for testing the
product along with the name and signature of an official of the responsible party, as designated in
 2.909 of this chapter.

  *              *              *              *              *

32.  Section 2.956 is revised to read as follows:

Section 2.956  FCC inspection and submission of equipment for testing.

     (a)  Each responsible party shall upon receipt of reasonable request:

     (1)  Submit to the Commission the records required by  2.955.

     (2)  Submit one or more sample units for measurements at the Commission's Laboratory.

     (i)  Shipping costs to the Commission's Laboratory and return shall be borne by the
responsible party.

     (ii)  In the event the responsible party believes that shipment of the sample to the
Commission's Laboratory is impractical because of the size or weight of the equipment, or the power
requirement, or for any other reason, the responsible party may submit a written explanation why
such shipment is impractical and should not be required.

     (b)  Requests for the submission of the records in  2.955 of this chapter or for the
submission of sample units are covered under the provisions of  2.946 of this chapter.

33.  Section 2.957 is deleted.

34.  Section 2.961 is deleted.

35.  Section 2.963 is deleted.

36.  Section 2.965 is deleted.

37.  Section 2.967 is deleted.

38.  Section 2.969 is deleted.

39.  Section 2.975 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (g), to read as follows:

Section 2.975  Application for notification.

  *              *              *              *              *

     (b)  The statement required in paragraph (a)(6) of this section shall be signed pursuant to
 2.911(c) of this part.

  *              *              *              *              *

     (g)  The records of measurement data, measurement procedures, photographs, circuit
diagrams, etc. for a device subject to notification shall be retained for two years after the
manufacture of said equipment has been permanently discontinued, or, if the responsible party is
officially notified that an investigation or any other administrative proceeding involving the
equipment has been instituted prior to the expiration of such two year period, until the conclusion
of that investigation or proceeding.

  *              *              *              *              *

40. Section 2.979 is deleted.

41.  Section 2.983 is amended by deleting paragraph (h) and replacing it with [Reserved], and by
changing the reference in the last sentence in paragraph (i) from "subpart C of part 97" to "Subpart D
of Part 97".

42.  Section 2.1003 is deleted.

43.  Section 2.1005 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) and by revising the
introductory sentence in subparagraph (c)(4), to read as follows:

Section 2.1005  Equipment for use in the Amateur Radio Service.

     (a)  The general provisions of  2.981, 2.983, 2.991, 2.993, 2.997, 2.999, and 2.1001 shall
apply to applications for, and grants of, type acceptance for equipment operated under the
requirements of Part 97 of this chapter, the Amateur Radio Service.

  *              *              *              *              *

     (c)  Any supplier of an external radio frequency power amplifier kit as defined by
 97.3(a)(17) of this chapter shall comply with the following requirements:

  *              *              *              *              *

     (4)  The identification label required by  2.925 of this part shall be permanently affixed to
the assembled unit and shall be of sufficient size so as to be easily read.  The following information
shall be shown on the label:  *     *     *

  *              *              *              *              *

     (d)  Type acceptance of external radio frequency power amplifiers and amplifier kits may be
denied when denial serves the public interest, convenience and necessity by preventing the use of
these amplifiers in services other than the Amateur Radio Service.  Other uses of these amplifiers,
such as in the Citizens Band Radio Service, are prohibited ( 95.411 of this chapter).  Examples of
features which may result in the denial of type acceptance are contained in  97.317 of this chapter.

44.  Section 2.1033 is amended by deleting paragraph (b)(10) and replacing it with [Reserved], and
by changing the reference in subparagraph (b)(11) from " 15.257(e)" to " 15.247(e)".

45.  Section 2.1045 is deleted.

46.  Section 2.1300 is revised to read as follows:

Section 2.1300  Cross reference.

     The general provisions of this part,  2.911, 2.923, 2.929, 2.935, 2.936, and 2.946 shall
apply to applications for and grants of registration for telephone terminal equipment pursuant to Part
68 of this chapter.