Equipment Authorization for Digital Devices

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 15

[ET Docket 95-19; FCC 97-240]

Equipment Authorization for Digital Devices

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: By this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission responds

to three Petitions for Reconsideration filed by the Information

Technology Industry Council (ITI), Hewlett-Packard Company (HP), and

Intel Corporation (Intel) regarding the Declaration of Conformity (DoC)

procedure for the authorization of digital devices. This action is

intended to clarify and improve the DoC process.

DATES: Effective September 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Engineering and Technology,

Anthony Serafini at (202) 418-2456 or Neal McNeil (202) 418-2408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's

Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket 95-19, FCC 97-240, adopted July

3, 1997 and released July 18, 1997. The full text of this decision is

available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in

the FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The complete text of this decision also may be purchased from the

Commission's duplication contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC

20036.

1. In the Report and Order, of this proceeding, 61 FR 31044, June

19, 1996, the Commission adopted rules to streamline the equipment

authorization requirements for personal computers and personal computer

peripherals. Specifically, the Commission established the DoC procedure

which allows digital devices to be authorized based on a manufacturer's

or supplier's declaration that the device complies with the FCC

requirements for controlling radio frequency interference. The DoC

procedure requires laboratories performing compliance testing to be

accredited under the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation

Program (NVLAP) developed by the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) or by the American Association for Laboratory

Accreditation (A2LA). In the Report and Order, the Commission delegated

to the Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology authority to

recognize additional accrediting organizations and to make

determinations regarding the continued acceptability of individual

accrediting organizations and accredited laboratories. Further, in the

interest of fair trade the rules specify that laboratories located

outside of the United States or its possessions will be accredited only

if there is a mutual recognition agreement (MRA) between that country

and the United States that permits similar accreditation of U.S.

facilities to perform testing for products marketed in that country.

2. The Report and Order also adopted rules to permit the marketing,

without further testing, of personal computers assembled from separate

components that have themselves been authorized under a DoC. The

Commission found that this approach would provide both flexibility for

manufacturers and system integrators and adequate assurance that such

modular computers will comply with the FCC technical standards. Testing

procedures were adopted for CPU boards and power supplies. However, due

to the difficulties associated with determining the shielding

effectiveness of enclosures, the Commission did not adopt rules to

authorize enclosures. To ensure that systems assembled from modular

components would comply with the technical standards, the Commission

adopted a two step test procedure for authorizing CPU boards. The CPU

board must first be tested installed in a typical enclosure but with

the enclosure's cover removed so that the internal circuitry is exposed

at the top and at least two sides. Additional components, including a

power supply, peripheral devices, and subassemblies, shall be added, as

needed, to result in a complete personal computer system. Under this

test, radiated emissions from the system under test may be no more than

3 dB above the limits specified in section 15.109 of this chapter. If

the initial test demonstrates that the system is within 3 dB of the

limits, a second test is performed using the same configuration but

with the cover installed on the enclosure. Under the latter test

conditions, the system under test shall not exceed the radiated

emission limits specified in section 15.109 of this chapter. If,

however, the initial test demonstrates compliance with the radiated

emission standards in section 15.109 of this chapter, the second test

is not required to be performed. The system must also be tested to

comply with the AC power line conducted limits specified in section

15.107 of this chapter in accordance with the procedures specified in

section 15.31 of this chapter.

3. On July 16, 1996, the Commission's Office of Engineering and

Technology (OET) issued a Public Notice taking steps to encourage the

use of the new DoC procedure. The Public Notice addressed concerns that

use of the DoC procedure would be hindered by the ability of NVLAP and

A2LA to timely process the initial demand for accreditation by adopting

a provisional transition period of one year for obtaining such

accreditation. The Public Notice also addressed issues concerning the

recognition of accreditors located outside of the United States. A

laboratory would be permitted to submit documentation to OET's

Equipment Authorization Division stating that it has filed an

application for accreditation with an approved laboratory accreditation

body and provide evidence that it meets all aspects of ISO/IEC Guide

25. Such labs will be provisionally accepted by the FCC for a period of

one year, until August 19, 1997, or until the application for

accreditation has been acted upon, whichever is sooner. A laboratory

that is denied accreditation by an approved accreditation body will

lose its provisional acceptance. However, any DoCs that were issued

will remain valid.

4. Petitions for Reconsideration were filed on July 19, 1996, by

the ITI, HP, and Intel. ITI requests reconsideration of the laboratory

accreditation requirement for manufacturers' and foreign test

laboratories to use the new DoC procedure. ITI feels that

manufacturers' laboratories should not be required to be accredited

before using the DoC process. Additionally, ITI argues that the

accreditation requirement should not apply to foreign trading partners

in countries that currently do not have similar accreditation

requirements. The Commission believes that laboratory accreditation is

a vital component of the DoC procedure and denies the ITI Petition for

Reconsideration. HP requests reconsideration or clarification of the

rules regarding use of the DoC procedure by laboratories outside the

United States. HP feels that the mutual recognition agreement (MRA)

requirement unreasonably discriminates against test labs located in

foreign countries. The Commission finds that the rules do not

adequately address the requirements for foreign laboratories

[[Page 41880]]

and grants the HP Petition by clarifying the requirements and

incorporating into the rules the July 16, 1996, public notice entitled,

``OET Takes Steps to Encourage Self-Declaration for Computer

Compliance'' (public notice). Intel requests reconsideration of the

testing procedure for the authorization of CPU boards to either take

into account the shielding effectiveness of enclosures or to disregard

emissions from peripheral devices. The Commission agrees that emissions

from peripheral devices should not adversely impact the testing of CPU

boards and grants, in part, the Intel Petition for Reconsideration.

Finally, the Commission amends the rules in several respects on its own

motion.

5. Accordingly, It is ordered that the petition for reconsideration

filed by Information Technology Industry Council is denied. The

petition for reconsideration filed by Hewlett-Packard Company is

granted. The petition for reconsideration filed by Intel Corporation is

granted as described above and denied in all other respects. Finally,

it is ordered that part 15 of the Commission's rules and regulations is

amended as specified below effective September 17, 1997. This action is

taken pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 301, 302,

303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304, 307 and 405 of the Communications Act of

1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f),

303(r), 304, 307 and 405.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

6. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in

ET 95-19, FCC No. 95-46, 60 FR 15116, March 22, 1995. The Commission

sought written comments on the proposals in the NPRM including the

IRFA. No commenting parties raised issues specifically in response to

the IRFA and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was

included in the Report and Order in this proceeding. The rules adopted

in this Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) provide clarification and

further relaxation of the computer authorization process requirements

adopted in the Report and Order. We therefore certify pursuant to

section 605(b) of the RFA that the rules adopted in this MO&O do not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

7. The Commission will send a copy of this final certification,

along with MO&O, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.

Sec. 801(a)(1)(A), and to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b).

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 2

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

47 CFR Part 15

Computer technology.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Amendatory Text

Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 2 and 15 are

amended as follows:

PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL

RULES AND REGULATIONS

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

Authority: Sec. 4, 302, 303, and 307 of the Communications Act

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303, and 307,

unless otherwise noted.

1. Section 2.909 is amended by redesignating paragraph (c)(3) to

(c)(4) and by adding a new paragraph (c)(3), to read as follows:

Sec. 2.909 Responsible party.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) Retailers or original equipment manufacturers may enter into an

agreement with the responsible party designated in paragraph (c)(1) or

(c)(2) of this section to assume the responsibilities to ensure

compliance of equipment and become the new responsible party.

* * * * *

2. Section 2.948 is amended by removing the note at the end of

paragraph (d) and by adding paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3) to

read as follows:

Sec. 2.948 Description of measurement facilities.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) In addition to meeting the above requirements, the

accreditations of laboratories located outside of the United States or

its possessions will be acceptable only under one of the following

conditions:

(i) If there is a mutual recognition agreement between that country

and the United States and that laboratory is covered by the agreement;

(ii) If there is an agreement between accrediting bodies that

permits similar accreditation of U.S. facilities to perform testing for

products marketed in that country; or

(iii) If the country already accepts the accreditation of U.S.

laboratories.

(2) Organizations outside of the United States that seek to become

accreditors may seek agreements with approved United States accrediting

bodies to mutually recognize the accreditation of laboratories. The

Commission will review such agreements and will consult with the Office

of the United States Trade Representative and other Executive Branch

agencies before accepting them for purposes of the DoC procedure in

order to ensure that the respective foreign countries accept United

States accreditations and do not impose additional barriers upon United

States companies. Accrediting bodies located outside of the United

States will only be permitted to accredit laboratories within their own

country for DoC testing.

(3) To facilitate use of the DoC procedure, the FCC will accept a

laboratory that submits documentation to OET's Equipment Authorization

Division stating that it has filed an application for accreditation

with an approved laboratory accreditation body and provides evidence

that it meets all aspects of ISO/IEC Guide 25. Such labs will be

provisionally accepted by the FCC for a period of one year (until

August 19, 1997) or until the application for accreditation has been

acted upon, whichever is sooner. A laboratory that is denied

accreditation by an approved accreditation body will lose its

provisional acceptance. However, any DoCs that were issued will remain

valid.

3. Section 2.1077 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b)(1),

(b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) to (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5)

respectively and by adding a new paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

2.1077 Compliance information.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Identification of the assembled product, e.g., name and model

number.

* * * * *

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

1. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 4, 302, 303, 304, and 307 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303, 304, and

307.

[[Page 41881]]

1. Section 15.19 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to

read as follows, redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) to (b)(3)

and (b)(4) respectively and adding a new paragraph (b)(2) to read as

follows:

Sec. 15.19 Labelling requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) If a personal computer is authorized based on assembly using

separately authorized components, in accordance with Sec. 15.101(c)(2)

or (c)(3), and the resulting product is not separately tested:

* * * * *

(2) Label text and information should be in a size of type large

enough to be readily legible, consistent with the dimensions of the

equipment and the label. However, the type size for the text is not

required to be larger than eight point.

* * * * *

2. Section 15.31 is amended by revising the first sentence of

paragraph (a)(6) and paragraph (b), to read as follows:

Sec. 15.31 Measurement standards.

(a) * * *

* * * * *

(6) Digital devices authorized by verification, Declaration of

Conformity, or for which an application for equipment authorization is

filed on or after May 1, 1994, and intentional and other unintentional

radiators for which verification is obtained, or for which an

application for equipment authorization is filed on or after June 1,

1995 are to be measured for compliance using the following procedure

excluding section 5.7, section 9 and section 14: American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.4-1992, entitled ``Methods of

Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and

Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz,'' published by

the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. on July 17,

1992 as document number SH15180. * * *

* * * * *

(b) All parties making compliance measurements on equipment subject

to the requirements of this part are urged to use these measurement

procedures. Any party using other procedures should ensure that such

other procedures can be relied on to produce measurement results

compatible with the FCC measurement procedures. The description of the

measurement procedure used in testing the equipment for compliance and

a list of the test equipment actually employed shall be made part of an

application for certification or included with the data required to be

retained by the party responsible for devices authorized pursuant to a

Declaration of Conformity or devices subject to notification or

verification.

* * * * *

3. Section 15.32 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and

(a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec. 15.32 Test procedures for CPU boards and computer power supplies.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(1) Testing for radiated emissions shall be performed with the CPU

board installed in a typical enclosure but with the enclosure's cover

removed so that the internal circuitry is exposed at the top and on at

least two sides. Additional components, including a power supply,

peripheral devices, and subassemblies, shall be added, as needed, to

result in a complete personal computer system. If the oscillator and

the microprocessor circuits are contained on separate circuit boards,

both boards, typical of the combination that would normally be

employed, must be used in the test. Testing shall be in accordance with

the procedures specified in Sec. 15.31.

(i) Under these test conditions, the system under test shall not

exceed the radiated emission limits specified in Sec. 15.109 by more

than 6 dB. Emissions greater than 6 dB that can be identified and

documented to originate from a component(s) other than the CPU board

being tested, may be dismissed.

(ii) Unless the test in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section

demonstrates compliance with the limits in Sec. 15.109, a second test

shall be performed using the same configuration described above but

with the cover installed on the enclosure. Testing shall be in

accordance with the procedures specified in Sec. 15.31. Under these

test conditions, the system under test shall not exceed the radiated

emission limits specified in Sec. 15.109.

(2) In lieu of the procedure in (a)(1) of this section, CPU boards

may be tested to demonstrate compliance with the limits in Sec. 15.109

using a specified enclosure with the cover installed. Testing for

radiated emissions shall be performed with the CPU board installed in a

typical system configuration. Additional components, including a power

supply, peripheral devices, and subassemblies, shall be added, as

needed, to result in a complete personal computer system. If the

oscillator and the microprocessor circuits are contained on separate

circuit boards, both boards, typical of the combination that would

normally be employed, must be used in the test. Testing shall be in

accordance with the procedures specified in Sec. 15.31. Under this

procedure, CPU boards that comply with the limits in Sec. 15.109 must

be marketed together with the specific enclosure used for the test.

* * * * *

4. Section 15.101 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a)

to read as follows:

Sec. 15.101 Equipment authorization of unintentional radiators.

(a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Type of device Equipment authorization required

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TV broadcast receiver............ Verification.

FM broadcast receiver............ Verification.

CB receiver...................... Certification.

Superregenerative receiver....... Certification.

Scanning receiver................ Certification.

All other receivers subject to Notification.

Part 15.

TV interface device.............. Certification.

Cable system terminal device..... Notification.

Stand-alone cable input selector Verification.

switch.

Class B personal computers and Declaration of Conformity or

peripherals. Cerification.

CPU boards and internal power Declaration of Conformity or

supplies used with Class B Certification.

personal computers.

Class B personal computers Declaration of Conformity.

assembled using authorized CPU

boards or power supplies.

Class B external switching power Verification

supplies.

[[Page 41882]]

Other Class B digital devices & Verification.

peripherals.

Class A digital devices, Verification.

peripherals & external switching

power supplies.

All other devices................ Verification.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97-20398 Filed 8-1-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P