Customs Brokers Seek Tweaks to FCC Imported Device Certification Plan, Support Other Parts Amid IoT Onslaught

An FCC proposal to remove radiofrequency device certification requirements for importers needs some language changes to avoid unintended regulatory issues, said the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America in a filing posted Wednesday in docket 15-170. While NCBFAA generally favored proposed changes to eliminate the import declaration filing requirements on FCC Form 740, the association said some language tweaks are necessary to distinguish between the parties involved in import transactions. Although the FCC intends to remove requirements for commission-specific declaration or filing upon import, the proposed language "does not accurately capture this shift," the NCBFAA said. As proposed, it said that "no radio frequency device may be imported into the Customs territory of the United States unless the importer or ultimate consignee, or their designated customs broker, determines that the device meets one of the conditions of entry." But "without a declaration to affix responsibility in each instance, it will be unclear exactly who made the determination," the NCBFAA said. "If the responsible party for making the determination could be any of three entities (i.e., the importer, the ultimate consignee or the customs broker, as the proposed regulation suggests), there is no certainty for the FCC or the trade as to which party is responsible for documenting how the radio frequency device was determined to be in compliance. This leaves a potentially significant gap in affixing responsibility." Customs brokers shouldn't be among the entities considered able to make such a "determination," the group said. While fewer than 100 forms a month were filed when the form became a requirement, an estimated 2 million are filed annually today, the NCBFAA said. "By 2020, an estimated 26 billion devices may be subject to FCC jurisdiction as the Internet of Things expands, making the Form 740 filing a burdensome requirement that appears to us to yield few enforcement benefits for the FCC."