CommLaw Monitor https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor News and analysis from Kelley Drye’s communications practice group Sun, 23 Jun 2024 14:53:16 -0400 60 hourly 1 All Signs Point to Aggressive Enforcement of Equipment Marketing Rules after Another FCC Action Related to LED Displays https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/all-signs-point-to-aggressive-enforcement-of-equipment-marketing-rules-after-another-fcc-action-related-to-led-displays https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/all-signs-point-to-aggressive-enforcement-of-equipment-marketing-rules-after-another-fcc-action-related-to-led-displays Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:45:38 -0400 After multiple enforcement actions totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties against importers and retailers of LED signs last year, it appears that the message has not been fully received. To the contrary, the FCC is back at it in enforcing its equipment marketing rules against importers and retailers of LED signs in 2019. In a recent Enforcement Advisory, the FCC again warned companies marketing noncompliant LED displays that they may be subject to costly investigations and significant monetary penalties. As we previously reported, these warnings should put all importers and retailers of LED signs – many of whom may not know FCC rules apply to them – on notice that their products should be authorized, properly labeled, and contain the required user disclosures before being marketed in the United States. The FCC often uses Enforcement Advisories to set the stage for future enforcement action and the agency appears poised to move forward with another wave of enforcement actions in the coming months. It is therefore critical that companies assess their equipment marketing compliance procedures now to avoid Commission enforcement later.

The Enforcement Advisory emphasizes the broad scope of the FCC marketing rules, which apply not only to equipment retailers but also any entity that imports, distributes, or advertises equipment for sale or lease. The Enforcement Advisory also highlights four key compliance requirements for marketers of LED signs:

  • First, each LED sign panel must be tested for compliance with FCC rules. Accordingly, each panel that differs in design must be tested and authorized separately. The Enforcement Advisory notes that LED sign panels authorized before November 2, 2018 under existing FCC’s procedures remain compliant unless the party later modifies the equipment to require a new authorization. For modified LED panels (and for new LED panels entering the market), the party will need to obtain a new authorization under either the FCC’s certification procedures (i.e., the party submits equipment for testing by an FCC-approved laboratory) or its Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (“SDoC”) procedures (i.e., the party certifies that it tested the equipment for compliance with technical standards).
  • Second, each authorized LED sign panel must comply with all labeling requirements. In particular, equipment authorized through SDoC procedures should be labeled with a unique identifier and include a compliance information statement provided electronically or in some other form easily accessible to end users, while equipment authorized through certification procedures should carry an FCC-issued identifier.
  • Third, marketers of LED signs should retain records demonstrating their compliance with the FCC’s equipment authorization rules, such as copies of test reports and compliance statements.
  • Fourth, marketers of LED signs that rely on SDoC authorization procedures must ensure that the party responsible for compliance with the FCC’s equipment marketing rules is located in the United States. This allows the FCC to easily contact the appropriate party when the equipment was not subject to testing by an FCC-approved laboratory.
The Enforcement Advisory cautions that parties marketing noncompliant LED signs may be subject to penalties of over $20,000 per day for individual violations, and over $150,000 for “continuing” violations that occur over an extended period of time. As equipment marketing violations often involve online advertisements or other ongoing retail activities, violations can quickly pile up to reach the maximum fine. In addition, the FCC has taken a “per model” approach to equipment marketing violations that assesses penalties for each piece of unauthorized equipment, even when the pieces were marketed together. As a result, equipment marketing violations can lead to significant fines and the stranding of unauthorized inventory. Importers and retailers of LED signs therefore should take action now to evaluate their current equipment marketing compliance practices in line with the Enforcement Advisory and identify potential improvements. LED sign manufacturers and retailers would be well advised to contact experienced counsel to determine how to comply with the FCC’s rules.

]]>
FCC Equipment Authorization Rule Change Transitions Now in Effect https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/fcc-equipment-authorization-rule-change-transitions-now-in-effect https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/fcc-equipment-authorization-rule-change-transitions-now-in-effect Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:40:25 -0500 On November 2, 2017, the FCC's revised equipment authorization rules were published in the Federal Register and took effect immediately. Our advisory details those rule revisions. The Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") had earlier determined that the new rules included no changes to the existing information collection requirements that required further OMB review before they could take effect.

The publication firms up the dates for the one-year transition period regarding the continued availability of the current Commission equipment authorization procedures prior to marketing or operation -- verification and Declaration of Conformity ("DoC") -- while the new Supplier's Declaration of Conformity ("SDoC") is also available for use for equipment that qualified under one or both of the two pre-existing processes. During the transition, for affected unlicensed unintentional radiators, one of these processes (or certification as an alternative in some cases) must be followed, as applicable per Section 15.101 of the FCC's rules prior to the new changes (for verification or DoC) or as revised (for SDoC). Note that there were no changes in the recent order to the categories of unintentional radiators that, as an alternative in some instances, also allow use of the certification procedures (which unlike the other processes we've mentioned require application and approval by Telecommunications Certification Bodies).

Through November 2, 2018, unlicensed devices that could have qualified for and have been subject to either the verification or DoC process under the rules in effect prior to November 2, 2017, can continue to use those processes. However, such devices may now go through the new SDoC as an alternative option.

However, responsible parties are well abused to take heed that, for any equipment that was first qualified through the verification or DoC process at any time, if there are changes after November 2, 2018, that would require the modified equipment to undergo a separate authorization process before it can be marketed and operated, those modified devices must go through the SDoC procedure (or certification if available) to cover the changes.

After November 2, 2018, all new models of unintentional radiators (unless there is an exception to the equipment authorization procedures) must go through either the SDoC "self-approval" procedure or, if applicable per Section 15.101, the certification approval process. On and after November 3, 2018, the verification and DoC procedures will no longer be available for any device types. But responsible parties, distributors, and retailers can be assured that equipment authorized under either one of those two procedures being phased out may continue to be marketed and operated indefinitely provided there are no changes requiring a new authorization.

]]>
July 2017 FCC Meeting Recap: FCC Adopts Major Changes to Approval Procedures for Many RF Devices, E-Labeling, Importation Regulations, and Other Equipment Authorization Rules https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/july-2017-fcc-meeting-recap-fcc-adopts-major-changes-to-approval-procedures-for-many-rf-devices-e-labeling-importation-regulations-and-other-equipment-authorization-rules https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/july-2017-fcc-meeting-recap-fcc-adopts-major-changes-to-approval-procedures-for-many-rf-devices-e-labeling-importation-regulations-and-other-equipment-authorization-rules Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:51:20 -0400 The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”), at its July 13, 2017, Open Meeting updated its equipment authorization procedures and rules in a number of ways that will be of great interest to everyone in the supply chain for both licensed and unlicensed radio frequency (“RF”) equipment, including manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. The First Report and Order changes the regulatory landscape applicable to the approval, labeling, and other compliance matters for RF equipment in a variety of ways that will take place immediately upon publication of the First Report and Order in the Federal Register except that some will be delayed to the extent they implicate Office of Management and Budget, OMB, review of new or modified information collection requirements.

We examine the First Report and Order and the principal changes in more detail in the referenced advisory.

Briefly, the FCC eliminated the verification and Declaration of Conformity (“DoC”) self-approval procedures from its rules, subject to a one-year transition. In their place, there will be a new procedure covering the same categories of devices now subject to one or the other of the existing procedures. The Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (“SDoc”) process amalgamates certain pieces of the two existing procedures and implements some entirely new requirements. Among other things, testing by accredited laboratories will not be required for devices qualifying for SDoC treatment, although the Commission may ask for test records. And the FCC also makes clear that users must be apprised of the party responsible for compliance, be provided appropriate contact information, and the responsible party must have a U.S. presence. Any equipment self-approved using the verification or DoC process prior to the end of the one-year transition period will enjoy a valid authorization for marketing and operation purposes in perpetuity, provided the equipment is not modified so as to require a new authorization

In addition, the Commission codified and refined when e-labeling will be permitted to meet certain labeling and compliance statement requirement for RF devices that have integrated digital displays. This action implements certain portions of the Enhance Labeling, Accessing, and Branding of Electronic Licenses Act (“E-LABEL Act”). The FCC adopted a maximum “three step” access requirement when electronic labeling is permissible and utilized, noting that the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology (“OET”) will provide guidance in response to specific questions regarding compliance via the KDB inquiry process. (Electronic labeling is never mandatory.) Step one would be a user accessing the device settings menu on the digital display. As an example of one “characteristic sequence,” accessing a submenu of legal information in step two and then a further submenu of FCC compliance information in step three would qualify. However, recognizing that there may be a lack of clarity in specific situations, the FCC directed the Office of Engineering and Technology (“OET”) to continue to provide guidance in response to specific questions regarding compliance via the KDB inquiry process. The e-labeling rules address certain specific and general scenarios exceptions where e-labeling will not be permitted, caution that temporary labels must still be used where a manufacturer exercises the e-labeling option, and require that appropriate instruction be provided separately for accessing the electronic labeling and compliance information. E-labeling is never mandatory.

Further, the Commission streamlined some aspects its importation rules, including the elimination of the requirement to file FCC Form 740 customs declarations. Yet, certain obligations of the Commission’s importation rules remain, and the FCC clarified the obligations of the responsible party, for imported devices, to determine and to be able to demonstrate compliance. The FCC observed that it is not changing any regulations of Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) and will not be seeking any changes from CBP. The agency also modified its rules to increase the number of devices that could be imported for trade show purposes and retained (and clarified) an importation exemption that applies to unintentional radiators that operate only on low level battery power, such as greeting cards, calculators, and quartz watches.

Finally, the Commission modified its rules on measurement procedures to include more direct cross-references to guidance from the FCC Laboratory’s Knowledge Database (“KDB”) and made other rules changes to clean up and clarify rules regarding the applicability of and certain alternatives to certain measurement procedures referenced in the rules, including ANSI C63.4-2014, ANSI C63.10-2013, and ANSI C63.26-2015.

]]>