FCC Web Documents citing 2.929

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-167A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-167A1.pdf
  • modified and therefore is not responsible for compliance with Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. We disagree. Section 2.909(a) of the Rules provides in pertinent part: 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 Sec. 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter. Ryzex modified Symbol PDT6840s, 6842s and 6846s by replacing their radio assemblies. Because Ryzex is not the grantee of the equipment certifications and was not working under the authorization of the grantee, we find that, under Section 2.909(a)
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1922A2.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1922A2.pdf
  • Commission. On January 16, 2007, GE MDS acquired the assets of MDS, a manufacturer of radio equipment, grantee of various equipment authorizations, and licensee of 170 Station Licenses in the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service. The Station Licenses consisted of 168 Multiple Address Service (``MS'') and two Microwave Industrial/Business Pool (``MG'') authorizations. In accordance with the notification requirements of section 2.929 of the Commission's rules, on or about January 19, 2007, GE MDS duly notified the Commission of the assignment of the equipment authorizations involved in the asset acquisition. GE MDS mistakenly interpreted Section 2.929, however, as permitting the same notification procedure in connection with its consummation of the assignment of the Station Licenses . GE MDS subsequently became aware that
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1952A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1952A1.pdf
  • rules in this chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter.... Section 2.909(a) of the Rules provides in pertinent part: 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 Sec. 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter. As discussed in the confidential Appendix, we find that, under Section 2.909(a) of the Rules, DCS became the party responsible for the compliance of the modified PDTs with the applicable technical and administrative provisions, including the labeling requirements.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-472A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-472A1.pdf
  • devices. We conclude, therefore, that the modified Symbol PDT6810, PDT6842, VRC6940, VRC6946, WWC1040 and PPT2842 are apparently unauthorized devices and, consequently, noncompliant. Section 2.909(a) of the Rules provides in pertinent part: 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 Sec. 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter. DBK modified twelve Symbol PDT models by replacing their radio assemblies. Because DBK is not the grantee of the equipment certifications for the devices at issue and was not working under the authorization of the grantee, we find
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1513A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1513A1.pdf
  • of the Second LOI. Inter Tech states that it is merely a system integrator that incorporated the Broadcast Warehouse models into casings. While Inter Tech denies making changes to the trade name and/or model number of these amplifiers, it marketed these amplifiers under the Cybermax trade name and model number. Absent authority from Broadcast Warehouse pursuant to Sections 2.924 and 2.929(b) of the Rules, Inter Tech's replacement of the Broadcast Warehouse name and number with the Cybermax name and model number constitutes a modification under Section 2.909(a) of the Rules. While Inter Tech claims that Broadcast Warehouse was aware of Inter Tech's intent to incorporate the amplifier modules into its Cybermax product line, Inter Tech offered no proof that Broadcast Warehouse
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-167A1.txt
  • modified and therefore is not responsible for compliance with Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. We disagree. Section 2.909(a) of the Rules provides in pertinent part: 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 Sec. 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter. Ryzex modified Symbol PDT6840s, 6842s and 6846s by replacing their radio assemblies. Because Ryzex is not the grantee of the equipment certifications and was not working under the authorization of the grantee, we find that, under Section 2.909(a)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1922A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1922A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1922A2.txt
  • Commission. On January 16, 2007, GE MDS acquired the assets of MDS, a manufacturer of radio equipment, grantee of various equipment authorizations, and licensee of 170 Station Licenses in the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service. The Station Licenses consisted of 168 Multiple Address Service (``MS'') and two Microwave Industrial/Business Pool (``MG'') authorizations. In accordance with the notification requirements of section 2.929 of the Commission's rules, on or about January 19, 2007, GE MDS duly notified the Commission of the assignment of the equipment authorizations involved in the asset acquisition. GE MDS mistakenly interpreted Section 2.929, however, as permitting the same notification procedure in connection with its consummation of the assignment of the Station Licenses . GE MDS subsequently became aware that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1952A1.txt
  • rules in this chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter.... Section 2.909(a) of the Rules provides in pertinent part: 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 Sec. 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter. As discussed in the confidential Appendix, we find that, under Section 2.909(a) of the Rules, DCS became the party responsible for the compliance of the modified PDTs with the applicable technical and administrative provisions, including the labeling requirements.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-472A1.txt
  • devices. We conclude, therefore, that the modified Symbol PDT6810, PDT6842, VRC6940, VRC6946, WWC1040 and PPT2842 are apparently unauthorized devices and, consequently, noncompliant. Section 2.909(a) of the Rules provides in pertinent part: 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 Sec. 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter. DBK modified twelve Symbol PDT models by replacing their radio assemblies. Because DBK is not the grantee of the equipment certifications for the devices at issue and was not working under the authorization of the grantee, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1513A1.txt
  • of the Second LOI. Inter Tech states that it is merely a system integrator that incorporated the Broadcast Warehouse models into casings. While Inter Tech denies making changes to the trade name and/or model number of these amplifiers, it marketed these amplifiers under the Cybermax trade name and model number. Absent authority from Broadcast Warehouse pursuant to Sections 2.924 and 2.929(b) of the Rules, Inter Tech's replacement of the Broadcast Warehouse name and number with the Cybermax name and model number constitutes a modification under Section 2.909(a) of the Rules. While Inter Tech claims that Broadcast Warehouse was aware of Inter Tech's intent to incorporate the amplifier modules into its Cybermax product line, Inter Tech offered no proof that Broadcast Warehouse
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-58A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-58A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-58A1.txt
  • Intelligence, Inc. IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary Letter from Kenneth R. Nichols, Chief of OET's Laboratory Division, to Donald J. Evans, November 17, 2000. See 47 CFR §§ 2.803, 2.1204. The requirements of the Commission's equipment authorization procedure are set forth in Sections 2.1031-2.1060 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.1031-2.1060. See 47 CFR § 2.929. See n. 1, supra. On August 3, 2001, TransIntel filed a Petition for Immediate Suspension and Permanent Revocation of Equipment Certification. This pleading is being considered as a supplemental filing to the Application for Review. At the time of Highway's authorization for the subject equipment, the terminology for grant of an equipment authorization was ``Type-acceptance.'' Type-acceptance and Certification are substantively
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-223A1.txt
  • Commission and an equipment product code assigned by the grantee. Section 2.926(c) permits applicants to submit a written request for assignment of a grantee code. We propose to modify this section of the rules to require electronic filing for all grantee code assignment requests. This proposed rule change will also further our efforts to comply with the E-Government initiative. Section 2.929(c) and (d) Changes in name, address, ownership or control of grantee. The current rules require the grantee of an equipment authorization to supply the Commission with a written notification whenever a change in name, address, ownership, or control of grantee occurs. We believe that notification can be accomplished faster and more efficiently electronically. Therefore, we propose to modify these sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-165A1.txt
  • to comply with the E-Government initiative. Specifically, we proposed to 1) delete the provisions for a paper filing of an application for Certification in Section 2.913, noting that no requests to submit paper filings had been received in the past five years; 2) modify Section 2.926(c) to require electronic filing for all grantee code assignment requests, and; 3) modify Sections 2.929(c) and (d) to require electronic filing for all changes in address, company name, contact person, and control/sale of the grantee. All parties commenting on this issue support these proposals. For example, Cisco believes that virtually everyone who would file for equipment certification or for a grantee code has access to both a computer and the Internet. Cisco also supports these
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-220A1.txt
  • (a) In the case of equipment which requires the issuance by the Commission of a grant of equipment authorization, the party to whom that grant of authorization is issued (the grantee). 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), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter. Greg Best Comments at 3. Greg Best Reply Comments at 3. Id. Sgrignoli Reply Comments at 12. We recognize that a potential exists with this approach for an inaccurate future depiction of ``masking'' interference. This inaccuracy will arise
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1998/fcc98338.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1998/fcc98338.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1998/fcc98338.wp
  • a broad range of equipment, we find that certain functions regarding certifying equipment should continue to be performed by the Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-338 60 See 47 U.S.C. section 302(a). 61 See, e.g., Title V of the Communications Act. 62 See ACIL comments at 6-7, Intertek comments at 7, and TIA comments at 7. 63 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.929(d). 64 See 47 C.F.R. § 68.214(b). 17 Commission. Specifically, TCBs will not be permitted to waive the rules, nor to certify new or unique equipment for which Commission rules or requirements do not exist or for which application of the rules or requirements is not clear. The Commission in the first instance will determine whether and under what conditions rules
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-167A1.html
  • modified and therefore is not responsible for compliance with Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. We disagree. Section 2.909(a) of the Rules provides in pertinent part: 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 Sec. 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter. Ryzex modified Symbol PDT6840s, 6842s and 6846s by replacing their radio assemblies. Because Ryzex is not the grantee of the equipment certifications and was not working under the authorization of the grantee, we find that, under Section 2.909(a)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1922A2.html
  • 3. On January 16, 2007, GE MDS acquired the assets of MDS, a manufacturer of radio equipment, grantee of various equipment authorizations, and licensee of 170 Station Licenses in the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service. The Station Licenses consisted of 168 Multiple Address Service ("MS") and two Microwave Industrial/Business Pool ("MG") authorizations. In accordance with the notification requirements of section 2.929 of the Commission's rules, on or about January 19, 2007, GE MDS duly notified the Commission of the assignment of the equipment authorizations involved in the asset acquisition. GE MDS mistakenly interpreted Section 2.929, however, as permitting the same notification procedure in connection with its consummation of the assignment of the Station Licenses . GE MDS subsequently became aware that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1952A1.html
  • rules in this chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by S: 2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter.... Section 2.909(a) of the Rules provides in pertinent part: 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 Sec. 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter. As discussed in the confidential Appendix, we find that, under Section 2.909(a) of the Rules, DCS became the party responsible for the compliance of the modified PDTs with the applicable technical and administrative provisions, including the labeling requirements.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-472A1.html
  • We conclude, therefore, that the modified Symbol PDT6810, PDT6842, VRC6940, VRC6946, WWC1040 and PPT2842 are apparently unauthorized devices and, consequently, noncompliant. 11. Section 2.909(a) of the Rules provides in pertinent part: 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 Sec. 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter. 12. DBK modified twelve Symbol PDT models by replacing their radio assemblies. Because DBK is not the grantee of the equipment certifications for the devices at issue and was not working under the authorization of the grantee, we
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1513A1.html
  • of the Second LOI. Inter Tech states that it is merely a system integrator that incorporated the Broadcast Warehouse models into casings. While Inter Tech denies making changes to the trade name and/or model number of these amplifiers, it marketed these amplifiers under the Cybermax trade name and model number. Absent authority from Broadcast Warehouse pursuant to Sections 2.924 and 2.929(b) of the Rules, Inter Tech's replacement of the Broadcast Warehouse name and number with the Cybermax name and model number constitutes a modification under Section 2.909(a) of the Rules. While Inter Tech claims that Broadcast Warehouse was aware of Inter Tech's intent to incorporate the amplifier modules into its Cybermax product line, Inter Tech offered no proof that Broadcast Warehouse
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fees/2000oetguide.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fees/2000oetguide.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/fees/2000oetguide.txt
  • the date the Code is assigned, or the Code will no longer be valid. A Grantee Code is permanently assigned, and is valid only for a specific applicant at a specific address. This same Grantee Code must be used to formulate each proposed FCC ID. o CHANGES IN NAME, ADDRESS, OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OF GRANTEE Pursuant to 47 CFR, Section 2.929 of the rules, the FCC must be notified of changes in name, address, ownership or control of grantee. Written notice of such changes should be sent to Chief, Equipment Authorization Branch at the address shown below under ``QUESTIONS.'' Failure to report these changes will result in administrative processing delays of applications. Currently, there are no fees required for reporting changes
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-96.pdf
  • 0.0100.0 $0 $180,429 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $0 Howland Island 0 $0 $0 $0 Jarvis Island 0 $0 $0 $0 Johnston Atoll 48 0.0100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $473,876 0.0100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 Kingman Reef 0 $0 $0 $0 Midway Atoll 4100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $442,920100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 Northern Mariana Islands 34 0.067.6 0.0 2.929.4 $296,401 0.073.5 0.019.7 6.7 $342,351 0.070.2 0.0 0.029.8 $0 Palmyra Atoll 0 $0 $0 $0 Wake Island 0 $0 $0 $0 Oceania 2,38945.535.510.4 4.1 4.5 $2,922,70830.853.3 0.0 7.6 8.3 $35,343,72445.434.1 9.4 8.3 2.8 $17,424100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Albania 3 0.066.6 0.033.3 0.0 $0 $87,723 0.059.1 0.040.9 0.0 $0 Armenia 4 0.050.050.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $69,553 0.062.637.4 0.0 0.0 $0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1998/fcc98338.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1998/fcc98338.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1998/fcc98338.wp
  • a broad range of equipment, we find that certain functions regarding certifying equipment should continue to be performed by the Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-338 60 See 47 U.S.C. section 302(a). 61 See, e.g., Title V of the Communications Act. 62 See ACIL comments at 6-7, Intertek comments at 7, and TIA comments at 7. 63 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.929(d). 64 See 47 C.F.R. § 68.214(b). 17 Commission. Specifically, TCBs will not be permitted to waive the rules, nor to certify new or unique equipment for which Commission rules or requirements do not exist or for which application of the rules or requirements is not clear. The Commission in the first instance will determine whether and under what conditions rules
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Public_Notices/2000/d001760f.doc
  • the date the Code is assigned, or the Code will no longer be valid. A Grantee Code is permanently assigned, and is valid only for a specific applicant at a specific address. This same Grantee Code must be used to formulate each proposed FCC ID. o CHANGES IN NAME, ADDRESS, OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OF GRANTEE Pursuant to 47 CFR, Section 2.929 of the rules, the FCC must be notified of changes in name, address, ownership or control of grantee. Written notice of such changes should be sent to Chief, Equipment Authorization Branch at the address shown below under ``QUESTIONS.'' Failure to report these changes will result in administrative processing delays of applications. Currently, there are no fees required for reporting changes
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-167A1.html
  • modified and therefore is not responsible for compliance with Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. We disagree. Section 2.909(a) of the Rules provides in pertinent part: 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 Sec. 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter. Ryzex modified Symbol PDT6840s, 6842s and 6846s by replacing their radio assemblies. Because Ryzex is not the grantee of the equipment certifications and was not working under the authorization of the grantee, we find that, under Section 2.909(a)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1922A2.html
  • 3. On January 16, 2007, GE MDS acquired the assets of MDS, a manufacturer of radio equipment, grantee of various equipment authorizations, and licensee of 170 Station Licenses in the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service. The Station Licenses consisted of 168 Multiple Address Service ("MS") and two Microwave Industrial/Business Pool ("MG") authorizations. In accordance with the notification requirements of section 2.929 of the Commission's rules, on or about January 19, 2007, GE MDS duly notified the Commission of the assignment of the equipment authorizations involved in the asset acquisition. GE MDS mistakenly interpreted Section 2.929, however, as permitting the same notification procedure in connection with its consummation of the assignment of the Station Licenses . GE MDS subsequently became aware that
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1952A1.html
  • rules in this chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by S: 2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter.... Section 2.909(a) of the Rules provides in pertinent part: 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 Sec. 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter. As discussed in the confidential Appendix, we find that, under Section 2.909(a) of the Rules, DCS became the party responsible for the compliance of the modified PDTs with the applicable technical and administrative provisions, including the labeling requirements.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-472A1.html
  • We conclude, therefore, that the modified Symbol PDT6810, PDT6842, VRC6940, VRC6946, WWC1040 and PPT2842 are apparently unauthorized devices and, consequently, noncompliant. 11. Section 2.909(a) of the Rules provides in pertinent part: 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 Sec. 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter. 12. DBK modified twelve Symbol PDT models by replacing their radio assemblies. Because DBK is not the grantee of the equipment certifications for the devices at issue and was not working under the authorization of the grantee, we
• http://www.fcc.gov/fees/2000oetguide.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fees/2000oetguide.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fees/2000oetguide.txt
  • the date the Code is assigned, or the Code will no longer be valid. A Grantee Code is permanently assigned, and is valid only for a specific applicant at a specific address. This same Grantee Code must be used to formulate each proposed FCC ID. o CHANGES IN NAME, ADDRESS, OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OF GRANTEE Pursuant to 47 CFR, Section 2.929 of the rules, the FCC must be notified of changes in name, address, ownership or control of grantee. Written notice of such changes should be sent to Chief, Equipment Authorization Branch at the address shown below under ``QUESTIONS.'' Failure to report these changes will result in administrative processing delays of applications. Currently, there are no fees required for reporting changes