Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-208
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O'RIELLY
APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
Re: Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of the Commission’s Rules regarding Authorization of
Radiofrequency Equipment; Amendment of Part 68 regarding Approval of Terminal Equipment by
Telecommunications Certification Bodies, ET Docket No. 13-44, RM-11652
Although I vote to approve the vast majority of this order, I cannot support the delegation of
authority to the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) to modify certain rules to incorporate
updated industry standards.
1
  Pursuant to this delegation, the bureau will be permitted to conduct its own
rulemaking proceeding to enact rules that will substantively affect Commission regulatees.  In fact, the
Commission will only vote on these updates if there is convincing evidence that the changes to the
standard would raise “major compliance issues.”  I have utmost confidence in OET, but I cannot support
such a delegation or the precedent it sets.  
The order states that, by allowing the bureau to conduct its own proceeding, it will allow the
Commission “to better keep pace with industry standards” than if the Commission had to conduct a full
rulemaking.  This argument just does not hold up to analysis or reason.  Either way, the proceeding will
have a notice, comment period, and involve drafting time.  If the process to bring an item to the floor is
that burdensome and time consuming, that is clearly an issue for the Chairman's FCC reform project, but
not a rationale for depriving Commissioners of the right to vote.  As we are led to believe that these
updates are not controversial, the Commission should be able to vote expeditiously.  Generally, I always
vote as quickly as possible.  In fact, if it weren't for this questionable delegation, I would have voted this
item a while ago.  
While I recognize that some may assert that similar delegations have been granted in the past, that
doesn’t mean that it is correct or good process.  Others may argue that this item will just result in a bureau
updating standards, but the questionable delegation of Commission authority to bureaus is becoming a
norm.  In fact, a declaratory ruling clarifying controversial data roaming rules and the wireless
competition report, which is normally voted on by the Commission, were just released on delegated
authority.  
I cannot support language that allows a bureau to determine the bounds of its own delegated
authority based on a subjective and vague standard, such as if the action does not “raise major compliance
issues.”  Under this item, OET gets to decide what is meant by “major,” and effectively acts as gatekeeper
to what the Commissioners get to consider.  Moreover, this language could easily serve as a model for
future delegations.  For example, could a future television standard, ATSC 3.0, be considered major?  Or
is that just updating a previous standard?  
For these reasons, I must dissent to the portion of the order delegating authority to OET to update
industry standards referenced in Commission rules.
                                                          
1
This delegation affects Part 2, 5, 15, and 18 rules.