[Federal Register: December 9, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 236)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68531-68547]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09de03-25]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2, 15, 18, 90 and 95
[ET Docket Nos. 01-278 and 95-19; FCC 03-149]
Radio Frequency Device Rules
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document relaxes and updates certain regulations for
unlicensed devices, to allow for improved operations. It also grants a
petition for reconsideration concerning the acceptance of foreign
laboratory accreditations and grants a petition for declaratory ruling
concerning the certification requirements for transmitters in the
private land mobile radio services. The rules will permit the
development of new types of unlicensed devices while protecting
authorized users of the radio spectrum from harmful interference.
DATES: Effective January 8, 2004. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications in this rule is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of January 8, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh L. Van Tuyl, Office of
Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-7506, TTY (202) 418-2989, e-mail: Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket Nos. 01-
278 and 95-19, FCC 03-149, adopted June 25, 2003, and released July 17,
2003. The full text of this document is available for inspection and
copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room
CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text
of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio
[[Page 68532]]
format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0531 (voice), (202) 418-7365
(TTY).
Summary of the Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order
1. In this Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and
Order, the Commission is updating certain regulations for unlicensed
radio frequency devices contained in parts 2, 15 and 18 of our rules.
Specifically, the Commission is: (1) Changing certain emission levels
in the restricted bands above 38.6 GHz; (2) eliminating the prohibition
on data transmissions and making other changes to rules governing part
15 remote control devices; (3) modifying the rules for radio frequency
identification systems to allow for improved operation; (4) simplifying
the labeling requirement for manufacturer self-authorized equipment;
and (5) making other changes to update and correct our rules. Because
of certain decisions in this Second Report and Order, the Commission is
granting a petition for reconsideration filed by the Information
Technology Industry Council (ITI) in ET Docket No. 95-19 to the extent
indicated herein and granting a petition for declaratory ruling filed
by M/A-COM Private Radio Systems, Inc. to the extent indicated herein.
2. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the
proliferation of unlicensed radio frequency devices that are regulated
under part 15 of our rules (part 15 devices). Such devices are
increasingly relied upon for many everyday functions in consumers'
lives. Examples of common part 15 devices include cordless phones,
computers, baby monitors, and garage door openers. The range of
applications and technologies for these types of devices continues to
evolve at a rapid pace. For example, digital processing speeds of
personal computers are above 2400 MHz as compared to only 25 MHz about
10 years ago. Cordless telephones now operate at higher frequencies,
with digital modulation techniques providing users with improved
performance and additional service features. In addition, technological
innovations are now being employed to develop new part 15 equipment and
systems for business and professional applications, e.g. high speed,
high capacity wireless local area networks (LANs). The part 15 rules
have been highly successful in permitting the development of new types
of unlicensed devices while protecting authorized users of the radio
spectrum from harmful interference. Many millions of part 15 devices
operate at the current limits without any significant interference
problems.
3. On October 15, 2001, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making and Order (NPRM), 66 FR 59209, that proposed a number of
changes to part 15 and other parts of the rules. These proposals were
based on recommendations contained within the Biennial Regulatory
Review 2000 Updated Staff Report, two petitions for rule making
concerning radio frequency identification systems, and other staff
recommendations. We received 153 comments and 58 reply comments in
response to the NPRM. On July 12, 2002, the Commission adopted a First
Report and Order, 67 FR 48989, in this proceeding that required radar
detectors to comply with the part 15 emission limits for unintentional
radiators with regard to emissions in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band to protect
very small aperture satellite terminals (VSATs) from interference. This
Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses many
of the issues raised in the NPRM that were not addressed in the First
Report and Order. We plan to address the issues of radio frequency
identification systems in the 425-435 MHz band and further changes to
the emission limits in the restricted band above 38.6 GHz other than
those discussed herein at a later date.
Restricted Frequency Bands Above 38.6 GHz
4. Specific frequency bands are designated as restricted bands in
part 15 to protect certain sensitive radio services from interference,
such as those that protect safety-of-life or those that use very low
received levels, such as satellite downlinks or radio astronomy. Only
spurious emissions are permitted in restricted bands, and such
emissions must comply with the limits in Sec. 15.209. The entire
frequency range above 38.6 GHz is a restricted band, although there is
an exception that permits transmitters to operate in the 46.7-46.9 GHz,
76-77 GHz and 57-64 GHz bands. At the time this frequency range above
38.6 GHz was designated as a restricted band, there was no requirement
in our rules to make measurements above 40 GHz because of limitations
in measurement technology. Designating the entire frequency range above
38.6 GHz as restricted, rather than restricting designated segments,
was simply a matter of administrative convenience and had no impact on
manufacturers because measurements were not required at those
frequencies. However, due to advancements in measurement technology,
the Commission now requires measurements above 40 GHz for some devices,
so these devices must now comply with the restricted band limits.
5. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the need for
changes to the restricted bands above 38.6 GHz and the potential
benefits to manufacturers of such changes. This Commission stated its
belief that it is not necessary to restrict the entire band above 38.6
GHz because only certain portions of the band contain sensitive radio
services that require this protection, such as those that protect
safety-of-life or those that use very low received levels, such as
satellite downlinks or radio astronomy. The Commission also stated in
the NPRM that restricting the entire band above 38.6 GHz makes
compliance more difficult to achieve for certain devices because they
must comply with tighter harmonic limits than would otherwise apply if
the band were not restricted. For example, the limit on harmonic
emissions from a transmitter operating in the 24.0-24.25 GHz band under
Sec. 15.249 of the rules is 2500 [mu]V/m at 3 meters. However, because
the harmonics from a device operating in this band fall in the
designated restricted band above 38.6 GHz, they must actually comply
with a tighter limit of 500 [mu]V/m at 3 meters. This conflict arose as
a result of a 1995 rule change that required spurious emissions from
transmitters operating above 10 GHz to be measured at frequencies above
40 GHz. Prior to that date, measurements were not required above 40 GHz
for such transmitters, so there was effectively no limit on radiated
emissions above 40 GHz.
6. Safety Warning System, L.C. (SWS), the Short Range Automotive
Radar Frequency Allocation Group (SARA) and Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco)
support modifying the restricted band above 38.6 GHz. SWS states that
there is no need for a restricted band at the second and third
harmonics of the 24 GHz band, and that the current restricted band bars
socially valuable products at a reasonable price from the market. SARA
states that the Commission should lift the blanket restricted status of
frequencies above 38.6 GHz and maintain protection only for bands with
sensitive services. It states that at a minimum, the Commission should
lift the restriction at the third harmonic of 24 GHz, i.e. 72 GHz,
because that is the most difficult harmonic to suppress and that
lifting that restriction would not adversely affect any passive
services. SARA claims that complying with the restricted band harmonic
limits can
[[Page 68533]]
double the cost of a 24 GHz transmitter. The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) submitted a list of 13 bands that it
believes should be designated as restricted because they are used for
passive sensing.
7. We are eliminating the requirement that the second and third
harmonics from field disturbance sensors operating under Sec. 15.245
in the 24.075-24.175 GHz band, specifically harmonics in the 48.15-
48.35 GHz and 72.225-72.525 GHz bands, must comply with the restricted
band limits in Sec. 15.209. We are also eliminating the requirement
that the second and third harmonics from devices operating under Sec.
15.249 in the 24.0-24.25 GHz band, specifically harmonics in the 48.0-
48.5 GHz and 72.0-72.75 GHz bands, must comply with the restricted band
limits in Sec. 15.209. These changes will resolve the current
discrepancy in our rules concerning the harmonic emission limits for
transmitters in the 24 GHz band. It will permit second and third
harmonic emission levels of 2500 [mu]V/m at 3 meters from devices
operating in the 24.0-24.5 GHz band under the provisions of 15.249 of
the rules, and 25,000 [mu]V/m at 3 meters from disturbance sensors
operating in the 24.075-24.175 GHz band under Sec. 15.245 of the
rules. These changes will benefit manufacturers because equipment will
no longer have to meet limits that are tighter than necessary to
control interference. These changes will not result in interference to
Federal Government operations because there are currently no such
operations in the 48.0-48.5 GHz or 72.0-72.75 GHz bands that would be
adversely affected by these changes. In addition, there are currently
no non-government operations in these bands. We note that there is a
pending proceeding that proposes to change from uplinks to downlinks
the Fixed Satellite Service allocation in the 71-75.5 GHz band and the
Mobile Satellite Service allocation in the 71-74 GHz band. We do not
expect that the changes we are adopting would affect any future
operations in the 72.0-72.75 GHz band, even if this band were
reallocated for satellite downlinks, because the high propagation
losses and directivity of signals at these frequencies would
significantly attenuate unwanted signals at a satellite receive site.
We believe that there may be additional bands above 38.6 GHz which need
not be designated as restricted because they do not contain services
that require protection. We are continuing our discussions with NTIA to
determine which bands above 38.6 GHz should continue to be designated
as restricted and we defer a decision on this matter to a later date.
Data Transmission by Remote Control Devices
8. Section 15.231 of the rules allows the operation of remote
control devices in the 40.66-40.70 MHz band and at any frequency above
70 MHz, except in designated restricted bands. There are two separate
provisions for operation under this section. The first provision, in
paragraph (a) of this rule section, contains field strength limits for
devices that transmit control signals, such as those used with alarm
systems, door openers and remote switches. A device operated under this
paragraph must cease transmission within 5 seconds after being
activated automatically or after a manually operated switch is
released. Continuous transmissions such as voice and video are not
permitted. Data transmissions are permitted only to identify specific
transmitters in a system, but no additional data may be sent. For
example, a device could transmit a warning when the pressure of a tire
is low but could not transmit the actual pressure level, or could
remotely activate a thermostat but not transmit the desired temperature
setting information. The rule also prohibits periodic transmissions at
regular predetermined intervals, although one transmission of not more
than one second is permitted once per hour per transmitter in a system
to verify the integrity of security transmitters. A device that is
employed for radio control purposes during emergencies involving fire,
security and safety of life may transmit continuously to signal an
alarm. The second provision, in paragraph (e) of this section, allows
any type of transmission, including data and transmissions at regular
periodic intervals. However, the provisions of this paragraph specify
lower field strength limits than paragraph (a). In addition, the
provisions of this paragraph limit transmissions to no more than one
second, with a silent period between transmissions of at least 30 times
the duration of the transmission, but in no case less than 10 seconds.
The field strength limits for remote control devices specified in
paragraphs (a) and (e) are based on the average value of the measured
emissions. For devices that use pulsed emissions, the field strength is
determined by averaging over one complete pulse train, including
blanking intervals, as long as the pulse train does not exceed 100
milliseconds. In cases where the pulse train exceeds 100 milliseconds,
the field strength is determined by averaging over the 100 millisecond
interval that produces the maximum value.
9. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to allow data transmissions
by remote control devices operating under Sec. 15.231(a) of the rules,
stating that the prohibition on data transmissions appears to be
unnecessarily constraining and can be an impediment to the development
of new types of devices, and that removing this restriction would not
result in an increased potential for harmful interference. It also
proposed to remove the prohibition on voice, video and continuous
transmissions and on the radio control of toys, because data
representing voice or video has no greater interference potential than
any other type of data, so there is no need to expressly prohibit them.
The Commission sought comment on the potential benefits of such changes
to manufacturers. It also sought comment on whether allowing data
transmissions would result in an increased proliferation of devices or
in devices transmitting for a greater amount of time, and whether there
is a need to modify the timing requirements in Sec. 15.231 to avoid
interference to other radio services.
10. ADEMCO, Cisco, Enalasys, Interlogix, ITI, JCI, Lifeline, Linear
and Mattel all support removing the restriction on data transmission by
remote control devices. Enalasys submits that removing this restriction
will allow manufacturers to make more flexible and imaginative low
power remote control devices. JCI states that permitting data
transmissions would eliminate confusion about distinguishing between
data and recognition codes, which are actually a form of data. ADEMCO
believes that permitting data transmissions would enable new products
such as comprehensive wireless displays. It also states that the
proposed changes would provide for advanced user interfaces, better
control capability, improvements in the installation process, and a
higher level of security to residential and business premises. Lifeline
states that its emergency alert transmitters designed for use by
persons living alone would be more useful if voice and data
transmissions were permitted, because they would be able to transmit
medical data such as blood pressure. Lifeline, Linear, JCI and Mattel
support permitting voice transmissions by remote control devices,
stating that this change would make devices more useful. JCI and Mattel
support permitting video transmissions. Mattel states that this change
would permit devices such as video baby monitors to
[[Page 68534]]
operate at 300 MHz. It also notes that the proposed elimination of the
prohibition on radio control toys would allow for increased bandwidth
and multiple receivers needed to permit racing of several remote
control cars. Mattel believes that harmful interference is unlikely
from such applications because the devices would be battery operated
with low radiated radio frequency power. Ademco does not believe that
the Commission should remove the restriction on radio control toys
because predicted intensive and repeated use of radio control toys
could interrupt security, safety and other vital applications of remote
control devices. Cisco and ITI state that permitting a limited data
stream for remote control devices would not lead to an increase in
interference. Cisco notes that the interference potential is a function
of the field strength levels and transmission duration and not the type
of information being sent. The National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) expresses concern about the
Commission's proposed changes. It states that under the proposed rules,
systems using voice and data would proliferate, and that because the
only timing restriction would be to turn off after five seconds, some
devices could be transmitting virtually all the time. It believes that
the increased transmission time of such devices as compared to devices
that transmit short-duration control signals would increase the
likelihood of interference to licensed services.
11. Several parties recommend rule changes beyond those proposed in
the NPRM. CEA requests that the Commission allow duty cycle averaging
over a one second interval instead of the 100 millisecond interval
currently specified in the rules, because this would allow for the
longer transmissions necessary to complete the setup, synchronization,
transmitter identification and sending of a string of data. Enalasys
wants the Commission to permit devices used only by trained operators
to operate with 10 dB higher power than currently permitted. JCI wants
the Commission to reevaluate its policy of permitting more rapid duty
cycles or continuous operation only during emergencies involving fire,
security or safety of life. It states that the Commission should permit
more rapid duty cycles to report on additional conditions that might
endanger property, machinery or the operation of systems. JCI believes
that requiring transmissions to cease after five seconds is arbitrary,
and believes the Commission should delegate authority to the Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET) to waive this requirement at its
discretion, although it did not suggest any specific standards that
should be considered in granting waivers. Interlogix wants the
Commission to permit devices to operate with a total of two seconds of
polling time per hour, with no limit on the number of individual
transmissions, because it will allow more useful information to be
sent, such as the time of entry/exit from a building or the identity of
a person entering or leaving. Interlogix also wants the five second
transmission time permitted by the rules to be the total transmission
time excluding the ``off'' times between pulses, because it claims that
the rule was designed to allow five seconds of continuous transmission,
so excluding the ``off'' times between pulses would allow the same
transmission time that the rule originally intended. Interlogix also
wants professional installers to be permitted to automatically initiate
transmissions longer than five seconds during the set-up of equipment
because sophisticated systems often require longer transmissions to
initialize them. Ademco supports the Interlogix proposal to allow a
total transmission time of two seconds per hour for polling, but it
disagrees with both Interlogix and JCI that the five second time limit
for transmissions should be changed. It states that this rule is
effective in ensuring a quiet band and promotes interference-free
operation of part 15 devices. Ademco disagrees with CEA that the duty
cycle averaging time should be increased to one second, because it
would be contrary to the short-burst principal underlying the shared
used of spectrum by devices operating pursuant to the rules. It also
disagrees with Enalasys that higher power should be permitted for
devices under the control of trained operators because any type of high
power operation is incompatible with existing part 15 uses.
12. We find that the restriction on data transmissions by remote
control devices in Sec. 15.231(a) should be removed. As noted by the
commenting parties, this change will allow manufacturers to make more
flexible, imaginative and useful remote control devices. It is not
practical to prohibit all data transmissions as NTIA requested.
Virtually all modern remote control devices transmit a string of bits,
and bits representing identification codes are indistinguishable from
bits representing information. Maintaining the prohibition on data
transmission inhibits the development of improved devices that pose no
significant risk of harmful interference. We note that the interference
potential of a device is a function of the field strength and duration
of the transmission, rather than the type of information being sent;
and, we are not changing the field strength or transmission timing
limits. We decline to remove the prohibition on voice, video and
continuous transmissions and on the operation of radio control toys as
the Commission proposed in the NPRM. There are already a number of
provisions in part 15 of the rules that permit voice, video, radio
control toys, and continuous transmissions in other frequency bands, so
there is no need to establish additional provisions for them under
Sec. 15.231(a). On further review, allowing such operation would in
fact significantly and unnecessarily expand the goal of the NPRM, which
was to allow manufacturers to develop devices that transmit
identification codes, supplemented with the transmission of some
additional data. The net result of the changes we are adopting is that
operation under Sec. 15.231(a) will continue to be limited to devices
that transmit a control signal, but such devices will be permitted to
transmit data with the control signal. They will have to meet the same
field strength, timing and other operational limits that currently
exist. We believe that these changes adequately address NTIA's concerns
about harmful interference from devices transmitting continuously
because the rules will continue to explicitly prohibit continuous
transmissions. Furthermore, the transmission timing and other
restrictions in Sec. 15.231(a), which limit operation to devices that
transmit a control signal and prohibit voice, video and the radio
control of toys, will preclude continuous data transmissions in any
case. No changes are being made to Sec. 15.231(e) because data
transmissions are already permitted under this section.
13. We decline to allow duty cycle averaging over a one second
interval as requested by CEA, rather than over the 100 millisecond
interval currently specified in the rules. The requested change
effectively allows higher signal strength, which could result in
increased interference potential of devices. The current requirement
does not preclude devices from transmitting for more than 100
milliseconds as CEA implies; it simply specifies the time interval for
determining the average field strength of a device that uses pulsed
transmission. Allowing an average to be calculated over a longer time
interval could result in a lower
[[Page 68535]]
value that does not accurately reflect the interference potential
because the average could include blanking intervals between signal
bursts that would be excluded from an average calculated over a shorter
time interval. We also decline to allow trained operators to use
equipment which operates with a 10 dB higher power than currently
permitted, as requested by Enalasys. Such equipment would have a higher
potential for interference to other services, and it is unlikely that
even a trained operator would have sufficient information to determine
whether harmful interference would occur in a particular location. We
decline to broaden the criteria under which more rapid duty cycles are
permitted as requested by JCI, or to allow setup transmissions longer
than 5 seconds as requested by Interlogix. JCI and Interlogix have not
shown why the existing limits are inadequate for the situations it
identified. Finally, we decline to change our requirement for a device
to cease transmission within five seconds after being activated
automatically or after release of a control that manually activates it,
and we decline to specify the five second time as excluding the ``off''
time between pulses. This requirement to cease transmissions within
five seconds prevents continuous transmissions which could result in
interference to other devices.
14. As recommended by Interlogix and Ademco, we will permit remote
control devices to transmit for a maximum of two seconds per hour,
instead of the current one second, for polling the integrity of
transmitters used in security or safety applications. The number of
individual transmissions will not be limited, provided the total
transmission time does not exceed two seconds per hour. This change
will allow for increased reliability in alarm systems by permitting
systems checks to be performed at more frequent intervals. Any
increased interference potential as a result of this change is
negligible because polling transmissions will still only be permitted
for less than one tenth of one percent of the time.
Radio Frequency Identification Systems
15. Radio frequency identification (RFID) systems use radio signals
to track and identify items such as shipping containers and merchandise
in stores. A system typically consists of a tag mounted on the item to
be identified, and a transmitter/receiver unit that interrogates the
tag and receives identification data back from the tag. The tag may be
a self-powered transmitter, or it may receive power from the
interrogating transmitter. RFID systems can operate in a number of
frequency bands under part 15. Part 15 currently permits the operation
of intentional radiators, including RFID systems, in the 13.553-13.567
MHz band at a field strength limit of 10,000 [mu]V/m at 3 meters.
Emissions outside this band must comply with the radiated emission
limits in Sec. 15.209, which specifies a limit of 30 [mu]V/m at 30
meters for emissions in the 1.705-30 MHz band.
16. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to modify the part 15
limits for operation in the 13.553-13.567 MHz band and the adjacent
13.110-13.553 MHz and 13.567-14.010 MHz bands, as requested by National
Council for Information Technology Standardization Technical Committee
B10 (NCITS B10), to allow the development of RFID tags capable of
operating uniformly in the United States, Europe and Australia.
Specifically, the Commission proposed to increase the maximum field
strength within the 13.553-13.567 MHz band from 10,000 [mu]V/m to
15,848 [mu]V/m at a distance of 30 meters, to increase the maximum
field strength permitted in the 13.410-13.553 MHz and 13.567-13.710 MHz
bands from 30 to 334 [mu]V/m at 30 meters, and to increase the maximum
field strength permitted in the 13.110-13.410 MHz and 13.710-14.010 MHz
bands from 30 to 106 [mu]V/m at 30 meters. These are the limits
developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)
for low power devices operating in these bands. The Commission further
proposed to allow devices operating in the 13.110-14.010 MHz band to
place emissions other than spurious emissions into the 13.36-13.41 MHz
restricted band because that band is used at only one radio astronomy
site in Florida and NTIA has no objection to allowing emissions from
RFID devices in this restricted band. In addition, the Commission
proposed to allow powered RFID tags and readers to be approved together
and labeled with a single FCC identification number.
17. CEA, Chester Piotrowski, DataBrokers, Inc. (DataBrokers), Gap,
Inc., MagTek, Inc., Motorola, NCITS B10, Philips Semiconductor
(Philips), the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), and Texas
Instruments (TI) support the proposed changes, stating they will allow
increased range for RFID tags, permit the development of new types of
devices, and harmonize the United States regulations with those of
other countries. TI states that this rule change would simplify the
design and manufacturing of RFID products and allow lower costs due to
worldwide commonality of standards. Both TI and Philips state that the
proposed changes would allow higher security, data transfer rates and
read range performance in RFID applications. HID Corporation believes
the proposed emission limits are not likely to cause interference to
other services and will benefit the public by permitting devices with
better performance. It believes that the 13.36-13.41 MHz band should be
removed from the list of restricted bands to permit sidebands from
devices at 13.553-13.567 MHz to fall in that frequency range.
18. Cubic Corporation (Cubic) states it does not support the
proposed changes for RFID tags unless a quantitative analysis is
provided to show that new systems will not interfere with existing RFID
systems in the band. It states that the petition was premised on the
idea that RFID tags would not be self-powered, but new self-powered
devices are being developed that will increase the noise floor in the
band. Both Cubic and Nickolaus E. Leggett state that part 15 devices
should not be permitted to operate in the 13.36-13.41 MHz radio
astronomy band because that would make it unusable for radio astronomy.
TI responds that Cubic has not shown that operation of RFID tags under
the proposed parameters would cause interference to other part 15 RFID
tags, and that the emissions from RFID tags would be too low to cause
interference to radio astronomy. NTIA states that it has no objection
to operation of RFID devices in the 13.110-14.010 MHz band, which
includes the 13.36-13.41 MHz restricted band, at the emission levels
proposed in the NPRM.
19. We are adopting the changes proposed in the NPRM to increase
the maximum field strength permitted in the 13.553-13.567 MHz band from
10,000 to 15,848 [mu]/m at 30 meters, to increase the maximum field
strength permitted in the 13.410-13.553 MHz and 13.567-13.710 MHz bands
from 30 to 334 [mu]V/m at 30 meters, and to increase the maximum field
strength permitted in the 13.110-13.410 MHz and 13.710-14.010 MHz bands
from 30 to 106 [mu]V/m at 30 meters. In addition, we will permit
emissions other than spurious emissions in the restricted band at
13.36-13.41 MHz. These changes will allow for improved operation of
RFID tags in the 13.56 MHz band without adverse consequences to other
devices, and will allow for the development of RFID tags that can work
in both the United States and other countries. As proposed in the NPRM,
we also will allow powered RFID tags to be
[[Page 68536]]
approved either as part of a system with a tag reader under one FCC
identification number, or under separate FCC identification numbers.
Allowing powered tags and readers to be approved together will simplify
the filing requirements in cases where the devices are always sold
together, and permitting tags and readers to be approved separately
will provide increased flexibility to manufacturers by permitting the
sale of different combinations of tags and readers.
20. We disagree with Cubic that an analysis is required to show
that new systems would not interfere with existing RFID systems in the
band. Cubic has not provided information to indicate that a problem
exists warranting scrutiny. We note that part 15 devices have no
interference protection from other part 15 devices. Also, because the
existing rules for the 13.553-13.567 MHz band place no restrictions on
the types or lengths of transmissions, self-powered tags are already
permitted. The rule changes we are adopting simply provide for an
increase in field strength within the 13.553-13.567 MHz band and
adjacent bands. We disagree with Cubic and Nickolaus E. Leggett that
emissions from RFID tags should not be permitted in the 13.36-13.41 MHz
restricted band. Neither party has provided information beyond
unsubstantiated allegations that there are any radio astronomy
operations in this band in the United States that would receive
interference from RFID tags. Radio astronomy operations in this band in
the United States are performed at only a single site in Florida.
Further, the proposal was coordinated with the Interdepartment Radio
Advisory Committee (IRAC), which includes the National Science
Foundation, which represents radio astronomy interests. No objections
to the proposed changes were received from radio astronomy interests.
Declaration of Conformity (DoC) Labeling
21. Declaration of Conformity (DoC) is an equipment authorization
procedure in which the manufacturer or other responsible party has the
equipment tested for compliance at a laboratory accredited to make the
required measurements. If an accredited laboratory finds that the
equipment complies with the applicable rules, it may be marketed
without an approval from the Commission. Equipment authorized through
the DoC procedure must be labeled as specified in Sec. 15.19 of the
rules, which provides two variations of the DoC label. One is for
equipment tested for compliance as a complete unit, and the other is
for personal computers assembled from components that were tested
separately for compliance. Either variation of label must include the
trade name, the equipment model number, the FCC logo, the phrase ``For
Home or Office Use'', and a statement as to whether the complete device
was tested for compliance or whether it was assembled from tested
components. A compliance information statement must be supplied with
equipment authorized through the DoC procedure, and this statement must
include the name and model number of the product, a statement that the
equipment complies with part 15 of the rules, and the name, address and
telephone number of the party responsible for the compliance of the
product. The compliance information statement supplied with equipment
that was assembled from tested components must also identify the
components used in the assembly.
22. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed several changes to
simplify the labeling required on products authorized through the DoC
procedure. It proposed to delete the requirement that the phrase ``For
Home or Office Use'' appear on the label as unnecessary and because
including it requires the use of a larger label, which could become
increasingly burdensome as advancements in technology result in smaller
and smaller equipment. The Commission also proposed to eliminate the
statement on the label that the complete device was tested for
compliance in order to further streamline the label. However, it
proposed to continue requiring that personal computers assembled from
tested components contain a statement to that effect on their label
because that information could assist us in determining the source of
compliance problems when investigating cases of non-compliant
equipment. The Commission sought comment on whether electronic labeling
should be permitted for devices authorized under the DoC procedure, and
if so, the appropriate method for electronically labeling equipment
such as computers that are authorized through the DoC procedure.
23. CEA, Cisco, IBM, ITI, Motorola, Shure, Uniden and TIA all
support the proposed simplification of the DoC labeling requirements,
stating that the changes will allow smaller labels on equipment. CEA,
Cisco and Motorola agree that the phrase ``For Home or Office Use'' is
not necessary on the label because Class B devices can be used
anywhere. Cisco agrees that the label on a computer assembled from
tested components should state that it was assembled from tested
components to assist the Commission in determining the source of, and
resolving interference that may originate with such devices. IBM
requests that we require the statement in Sec. 15.19(a)(3) to appear
only in the instruction manual rather than on the product to save
space, and that the product be labeled with the phrase ``Class A'' or
``Class B'' in place of the statement. Shure requests that we allow
manufacturers to use externally accessible areas such as battery
compartments for labeling because it is undesirable for labeling on
wireless microphones to show up on camera, and because the battery
compartment offers protection from wear and perspiration and will be
seen when the user replaces batteries. IBM and ITI request that we
codify the accepted practice of allowing the trade name and model
number to be placed in locations other than the compliance label to
avoid using critical space for redundant information. CEA requests that
we provide sufficient lead time for manufacturers to plan and implement
any labeling changes.
24. IBM, ITI and TIA support permitting electronic labeling for
equipment authorized under the DoC procedure in order to reduce costs
and allow easy re-labeling of equipment. ITI and TIA believe that
electronic labeling should be permitted for equipment authorized under
all parts of the rules, as an alternative to physical labeling, and IBM
believes that electronic labeling should be permitted to display the
FCC identification number of transmitters that are installed in laptops
by selecting the proper pull-down menu, similar to what is permitted
for software defined radios.
25. As proposed, we are eliminating the requirement for the DoC
label to contain the phrase ``For Home or Office Use'' as unnecessary,
because the DoC procedure is applicable to Class B digital devices and
other types of equipment that can be used anywhere. This change will
simplify the labeling requirements and permit smaller labels on
equipment. We are also eliminating as unnecessary the requirement for
the DoC label to state if the complete device was tested for
compliance. We will continue to require the DoC label on computers
assembled from tested components to state that they were assembled from
tested components, because that information could assist the Commission
in determining the source of compliance problems with such devices. It
will be presumed that the complete device was tested for compliance
unless the label states otherwise. We believe that the vast
[[Page 68537]]
majority of equipment subject to DoC is tested as a complete unit
rather than assembled from tested components. Therefore, this action
will allow labels to be further streamlined on the majority of devices
subject to this procedure. Because this change is deregulatory in
nature and requires no new information to be added to labels, no
transition period is necessary. Responsible parties may continue to use
labels that were designed to meet the old requirements as long as they
wish and may change to the simplified labels at their convenience.
26. We decline to limit the appearance of the statement required by
Sec. 15.19(a)(3) to the instruction manual, as requested by IBM. This
statement advises users that operation of the equipment is subject to
the conditions that it not cause harmful interference and that it must
accept any interference received, including interference that may cause
undesired operation. We believe that many users may be unaware of this
requirement for part 15 devices, so this statement provides useful
information to users. In addition, Sec. 15.19(a)(5) already contains a
provision that permits the label to be placed in the instruction manual
in cases where a device is so small that it is not practicable to place
the statement on the device. We decline to change the rules as
requested by ITI and IBM to specify that the trade name and model
number do not have to appear on the DoC label if they appear elsewhere
on the equipment, because we already permit placement of this
information elsewhere on the equipment when necessary. Therefore, there
is no need for the recommended rule change. Likewise, labeling for a
device may be placed inside a battery compartment when necessary, so
there is no need for a rule change.
27. We decline to permit electronic labeling of equipment subject
to DoC or for any other equipment except software defined radios. The
rules currently permit electronic labeling for software defined radios
because there is sometimes a need for a third party to change the
identification number of a radio in the field when changes are made to
the software that affect the device's operating frequency, modulation
type or maximum output power. This permits the identification number to
be changed without physical re-labeling of a radio. None of the
comments in this proceeding have shown that there is a similar need for
us to allow this capability in equipment subject to DoC or in any other
equipment besides software defined radios.
Test Procedure for Unlicensed PCS Equipment
28. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to incorporate into our
rules by reference American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.17-
1998 as the procedure it will use for testing unlicensed Personal
Communication Service (PCS) equipment. This procedure was developed by
the ANSI C63 Committee specifically for testing unlicensed PCS
equipment for compliance with the requirements in part 15 of the rules.
29. CEA, Cisco and Motorola support the use of the C63.17-1998
procedure for testing unlicensed PCS equipment. CEA and Motorola state
that this procedure will help ensure that equipment complies with the
Commission's rules. Cisco states that it was developed by qualified
industry experts. We find that ANSI C63.17-1998 provides detailed
guidance that will assist manufacturers in measuring unlicensed PCS
devices to ensure that they comply with the requirements in our rules.
Accordingly, we are incorporating this procedure into the rules by
reference as the procedure we will use for testing unlicensed PCS
equipment under part 15 of the rules.
Approval of Very Low-Powered Devices
30. Part 15 currently requires all intentional radiators to be
certified, regardless of how low an operating power they use.
Certification requires the manufacturer to have the equipment tested
for compliance, then file an application and wait for approval before
the equipment can be marketed. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to
exempt intentional radiators operating below 490 kHz from certification
if the maximum field strength emitted is more than 40 dB below the
applicable part 15 limits. As an alternative, the Commission sought
comment on whether such devices should be subject to verification
rather than exempted from any form of equipment authorization.
Verification simply requires the manufacturer to have the equipment
tested and to retain certain information on file. No application filing
is required for verification and the equipment may be sold as soon as
it is found to comply. The Commission stated that the interference
potential of such devices appears to be extremely low, and that
requiring certification seems to be an unnecessary burden on
manufacturers.
31. The comments support eliminating the certification requirement
for very low-powered intentional radiators, arguing that it is
burdensome and unnecessary. AdvaMed, Cisco, Linear, Polhemus and Uniden
argue that such low-powered devices have a low potential for
interference. TRP and AdvaMed state that signals 40 dB below the part
15 limit are below the ambient noise level and are difficult to
measure. TRP believes that devices operating below 490 kHz that are
battery operated with a self-contained antenna of much less than a
wavelength should be exempted from any kind of equipment authorization
if all emissions are at least 40 dB below the limit. It also believes
that devices that have emissions less than 40 dB below the limit and
that connect to the AC power lines should be subject to verification,
rather than exempted, because they have a somewhat higher potential for
interference. TRP states that compliance by low-powered devices can be
determined by mathematical calculation and that open field testing is
not necessary. However, ITI believes that devices must be tested to
show they are at least 40 dB below the limit. It states that once a
device is tested, the additional burden imposed by verification is
minor in nature. Wacom recommends that the upper frequency range of
devices to be exempted should be 1705 kHz instead of 490 kHz, so that
devices can use higher frequencies to avoid interference from computer
monitors. TIA states that the 490 kHz cutoff is too restrictive, and
believes that the Commission should also eliminate the certification
requirement for 2.4 GHz Bluetooth transmitters operating with less than
1 mW of power because they must already go through a rigorous private
sector certification process for industry acceptance.
32. We find that requiring certification for intentional radiators
operating below 490 kHz that have all emissions at least 40 dB below
the limit is an unnecessary burden on manufacturers because the
interference potential of such equipment is extremely low. Instead, we
will require such equipment to be authorized through the verification
procedure, thus eliminating the need for manufacturers to file an
application and wait for an approval before marketing their equipment.
Under the verification procedure, manufacturers may show that all
emissions are at least 40 dB below the limit through testing. We
recognize, however, that because of the low signal levels involved, it
may be difficult to even detect such emissions with conventional
measurement equipment. As an alternative to actual measurements, we
will allow
[[Page 68538]]
manufacturers instead to demonstrate through calculations or other
analysis that all emissions from their equipment will be at least 40 dB
below the limit. We find that it is necessary for manufacturers to make
a determination that a device complies with the emission limits to
prevent harmful interference to authorized services, and to retain
records to demonstrate compliance with the limits. The verification
procedure is the most appropriate means to ensure that manufacturers
make the necessary determination of compliance and maintain records of
this determination.
33. We decline to expand this decision to exempt from certification
equipment used in bands above 490 kHz. Wacom provided only assertions
and no specific technical information to demonstrate that there would
be interference problems from computer monitors to low-power
transmitters operating below 490 kHz. In addition we believe that the
higher level of oversight of certification is necessary at this time to
protect the marine distress band at 495-505 kHz and the AM broadcast
band at 535-1705 kHz from interference caused by non-compliant
equipment. We decline to exempt intentional radiators from
authorization if they are battery operated and all radiated emissions
are more than 40 dB below the part 15 limits, as requested by TRP. As
noted previously, we find that verification is the appropriate means to
ensure that manufacturers make the necessary determination of equipment
compliance and maintain records of this determination. We decline to
permit intentional radiators operating above 490 kHz that have
emissions less than 40 dB below the limit to be authorized through
verification procedure, rather than the current certification
procedure. As TRP noted, such equipment has a higher potential to cause
interference, so we find that the higher level of oversight of
certification is necessary. We also decline to exempt other types of
devices such as Bluetooth transmitters from certification as TIA
requested, because such equipment has a significantly higher potential
for causing interference than other low power intentional radiators
that we are permitting to be verified, so we find that the higher level
of oversight of certification is appropriate for such equipment. TIA
has not provided information to show that the private sector
certification procedure it cites is comparable to our certification
procedure for demonstrating compliance with the rules. We also note
that Bluetooth devices operating under 1 mW can already be certificated
by private sector Telecommunication Certification Bodies.
Information to the User
34. Part 15 requires certain information to be included in the
instruction manual, including a statement that unauthorized
modifications to a device could void the user's authority to operate
it. In addition, the manual for a digital device must include a warning
of the potential for interference to other devices and a list of some
steps that could possibly eliminate the interference. In the NPRM, the
Commission proposed to permit manufacturers to provide this type of
information in the instruction manual in whatever form the manual is
supplied. This could be on paper, a computer disk, a CD-ROM or over the
Internet. The Commission noted that while the rules originally
envisioned that this information would be included in a paper
instruction manual, the Commission has permitted this warning
information to be provided by alternative means, such as a CD-ROM. It
sought comment on whether Internet-delivered manuals create
accessibility problems for consumers without Internet access or for
groups of consumers for whom obtaining Internet access is difficult.
The Commission also sought comment on whether allowing important
information to be delivered only over the Internet would result in
certain consumers having insufficient access to information, and on
whether allowing warnings to be delivered exclusively online would
result in a significant reduction in the number of consumers who
receive the warnings.
35. Linear supports the proposed change to the user manual
requirements because it should make no difference if the manuals are
printed on paper, on a CD-ROM or available over the Internet. ITI
states that providing warnings and information statements in the same
form as the user manual will result in cost savings to the industry. It
believes that allowing alternative means of accessing information could
enhance access to the disabled community because computers could
``read'' information to the user or magnify it for easier viewing. CEA,
Motorola and TIA support providing flexibility for manufacturers to
provide information by paper, disk, CD-ROM or the Internet, but believe
that user warning information pertaining to safety aspects of equipment
should be required in hard copy form that can be retained because not
all users will have access to a computer or the Internet. Cisco states
there is no reason to believe that permitting online delivery will
limit access because Internet access is not limited, and because
manufacturers can and do provide contact information for consumers who
desire to obtain manuals and warning statements by traditional means.
IBM and ITI believe that information should be allowed to be made
available over the Internet only if that is the sole method through
which the user manual is supplied and the equipment will be used with
Internet access. IBM requests that the proposed changes also apply to
Sec. 15.27(a), which requires a statement in the user's manual when
special accessories are required for a device to comply with the rules.
Nickolaus E. Leggett and Steven Bryant stated that allowing instruction
manuals to be provided over the Internet alone should not be permitted
because many households have slow Internet access or no Internet access
at all.
36. As proposed, we will permit the warning statements required by
part 15 to be placed in the instruction manual when the manual is
provided in formats other than paper, such as on a computer disk or
over the Internet. This change will provide increased flexibility to
manufacturers and will result in cost savings to the industry. As ITI
notes, allowing alternative means of accessing information could
enhance access to the disabled community because computers could
``read'' information to the user or magnify it for easier viewing.
However, we recognize that some persons do not have access to a
computer or the Internet, so such persons would not have the capability
of reading instruction manuals in alternative forms. Therefore, we will
allow warning statements to be provided in alterative forms only when
the instruction manual is provided in the same alternative form and the
user can reasonably be expected to have the capability to access
information in that form. For example, warning statements may be
provided in a manual on a CD-ROM or other type of computer disk when no
paper manual is provided, and the equipment either has the capability
of reading the disk or is used with equipment that is capable of
reading the disk. Warning statements may be provided in a manual on the
Internet only when the manual is provided solely over the Internet and
the equipment will be used with Internet access. We believe that these
requirements will help ensure that the part 15 warning statements are
accessible to all persons using a given device. We are also making this
change applicable to Sec. 15.27(a) as requested by IBM, because that
section lists information that must be included in
[[Page 68539]]
the instruction manual. We note that the Commission's Laboratory
sometimes requires manufacturers to provide information in the
instruction manual advising users that equipment must be operated at a
minimum distance from the body to comply with the RF safety guidelines
in the rules. We will allow such statements to be provided in the same
manner as the part 15 warning statements. If the instruction manual is
provided in an alternative format, manufacturers can provide the RF
safety statements information in hard copy form if they choose, but we
will not require them to do so.
Emission Limits Above 2 GHz
37. While the Commission did not propose any changes to the general
radiated emission limits in part 15 of the rules or to the radiated
emission limits that apply outside the Industrial, Scientific and
Medical (ISM) bands under part 18 of the rules, several parties filed
comments recommending changes to these limits. ITI states that it may
be appropriate to increase the part 15 limits in steps above 6 GHz,
10.5 GHz and 15 GHz, but did not recommend specific limits. Linear
believes that the current part 15 limit of 500 [mu]V/m at 3 meters
above 960 MHz should increase by 3 dB for every doubling of frequency.
Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. (Sirius) requests that we reduce the
current part 15 and 18 limits to 8.6 [mu]V/m at 3 meters in the
satellite digital audio radio service (SDARS) band. XM Radio, Inc. (XM)
requests that we establish a limit in the SDARS band of 18 [mu]V/m at 3
meters for part 15, 18 and 95 devices operating exclusively in
vehicles, and a limit of 8.6 [mu]V/m at 3 meters for such devices
operating in all other environments. Intersil and Motorola oppose
Sirius' and XM's recommended emission limits in the SDARS bands,
disputing the methodology used to arrive at the recommended limits.
Because the Notice did not include proposals for any changes to the
general radiated emission limits for equipment operating under parts
15, 18 or other parts of the rules, we find that the requests made by
ITI and Linear to raise the emission limits above 960 MHz are outside
the scope of this proceeding. Likewise, we find that the requests by XM
and Sirius for tighter emission limits in the SDARS band are also
outside the scope of this proceeding.
Additional Changes to Part 15
38. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed additional changes to part
15 of the rules to modify rule sections that needed to be updated to
reflect the availability of more recent industry documents, or that
needed other minor revisions. The following is a summary of the
proposed changes:
[sbull] Section 15.31 Measurement standards: remove references to
measurement procedures that are no longer used, correct the
Commission's mailing address, update the reference to reflect the new
ANSI C63.4-2001 measurement procedure and clarify the type of antenna
used for radiated measurements below 30 MHz.
[sbull] Section 15.118 Cable ready consumer electronics equipment:
correct the Commission's mailing address.
[sbull] Section 15.120 Program blocking technology requirements for
television receivers: correct the Commission's mailing address.
[sbull] Section 15.255 Operation in the band 59.0-64.0 GHz: correct
the wording in paragraph (b)(5) from ``emission limits'' to ``emission
levels''.
39. CEA, IBM, Motorola and TIA support these proposals to update
and correct the rules. ITI and Cisco support referencing the C63.4-2001
measurement procedure in place of the C63.4-1992 measurement procedure
currently referenced in the rules. They also request that we exclude
the use of section 8.2.2 of C63.4, which permits measurements of
radiated emissions below 30 MHz to be made with a rod antenna, because
the Commission and Telecommunication Certification Bodies only accept
measurements made with a calibrated loop antenna. Retlif and ACIL
oppose the use of the C63.4-2001 measurement procedure, stating that
there will be no consistent application of the new standard for many
years because there were wide differences in interpretation of the
standard within the committee that approved it. IBM suggests that we
permit use of the CISPR 22 measurement procedure below 1 GHz as an
alternative to the C63.4 procedure to eliminate the potential for dual
testing of products worldwide. IBM also suggests that we adopt the
CISPR 22 emission limits as alternatives to our AC power line and
radiated emission limits for intentional radiators in Sec. Sec. 15.207
and 15.209 of the rules. IBM states this could eliminate multiple
testing of computers that contain transmitters because our rules permit
computers, but not transmitters, to be tested for compliance with the
CISPR 22 limits, so multiple tests may be required for one device.
40. We are adopting the changes we proposed to update and correct
the rules, including referencing the C63.4-2001 measurement procedure.
C63.4-2001 provides clarifications to the measurement procedure and
configuration of the equipment under test, but does not contain any
significant changes from C63.4-1992 that will affect measurement
results. As proposed, we will exclude the use of section 8.2.2 of
C63.4-2001 concerning rod antennas because we have found that
calibrated loop antennas provide more accurate and repeatable field
strength measurements below 30 MHz. Referencing the new procedure is
necessary because the C63.4-1992 procedure referenced in our rules is
no longer available from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) Standards Department. We do not accept the
recommendation of Retlif and ACIL not to reference C63.4-2001 in the
rules. C63.4-2001 has gone through the ANSI review process and has been
adopted as an ANSI standard. We decline to specify the use of the CISPR
22 measurement procedure as an alternative to the C63.4 procedure as
requested by IBM. We support the concept of a single compliance test
for equipment. In this case, though, there are differences between the
two procedures and it has not been shown that the procedures produce
equivalent measurement results. For example, the CISPR 22 procedure
specifies the use of ferrite clamps on some cables on the equipment
under test, while the C63.4 procedure does not. We will consider the
possibility of recognizing the CISPR 22 procedure as an alternative to
the C63.4 procedure, as well as the possibility of accepting the CISPR
22 limits for intentional radiators, at a later time.
Family Radio Service Equipment Measurements.
41. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to require that carrier
frequency tolerance measurements for Family Radio Service (FRS)
transmitters be made over the temperature range of - 20 [deg]C to +50
[deg]C rather than -30 [deg]C to +50 [deg]C. This proposal was intended
to correct an inadvertent conflict between the rules and existing
Commission measurement practices that arose when the Commission
streamlined the equipment authorization procedures in 1998.
42. Cobra Electronics Corporation (Cobra) and Uniden America
Corporation (Uniden) support the proposed change. Uniden states that
measurements should be required only to -20 [deg]C, because years of
experience with radios tested to this temperature show that no adverse
consequences have been observed in the real world. Cobra states that
millions of FRS units have been produced that were tested to -20 [deg]C
with no reported difficulties
[[Page 68540]]
from the users of the radio, so the rules should be amended to reflect
the temperature range over which measurements have been required.
43. We find that -20 [deg]C to +50 [deg]C is the appropriate
temperature range for which frequency stability measurements should be
made on FRS transmitters. FRS is a very short distance voice
communication service intended for facilitating family and group
activities, and we do not expect that FRS equipment would be used
frequently at temperatures below -20 [deg]C (-4 [deg]F). The relatively
low power of this equipment means that there would not be a significant
risk of interference even if the carrier frequency were to drift out of
tolerance below -20 [deg]C. We note that the -20 [deg]C to +50 [deg]C
temperature range is consistent with the requirements in part 15 for
low power transmitters that require frequency stability measurements.
Finally, as Uniden and Cobra stated, many FRS transmitters have been
approved and marketed that have been tested to only -20 [deg]C, and
there have been no apparent problems. Accordingly, we are requiring the
frequency tolerance of FRS transmitters to be measured over the
temperature range of -20 [deg]C to +50 [deg]C, as proposed.
Accreditation of Test Laboratories
44. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed that a test laboratory
that has been accredited by an organization recognized by the
Commission would no longer have to file a description of its
measurement facilities with the Commission, provided the accrediting
organization submitted certain information about the laboratory to the
Commission. The information that would have to be submitted would be
the laboratory name, address, contact information, scope of
accreditation, date of accreditation, and the date by which the
accreditation must be renewed. This proposal was intended to reduce the
burden on laboratories by eliminating the need for them to file
duplicate information with both the Commission and an accrediting
organization. The Commission also proposed to clarify the conditions
for recognizing the accreditation of laboratories outside the United
States. Specifically, laboratories outside the United States would be
recognized by the Commission if one of the following two conditions are
met: (1) The laboratory has been designated by a foreign authority and
recognized by the Commission under the terms of a government-to-
government Mutual Recognition Agreement or Arrangement (MRA); or (2)
the laboratory has been accredited by an organization whose
accreditations are recognized by the Commission.
45. CEA, Cisco, IBM, Motorola and TIA support eliminating the
requirement for accredited laboratories to file a description of their
measurement facilities with the Commission. These parties state that it
is unnecessary for this information to be filed with the Commission
because it has already been filed with the accrediting organization.
However, Retlif Testing Laboratories (Retlif) and the American Council
for Independent Laboratories (ACIL) oppose removing this requirement,
stating the change would add costs for the accredited laboratory
because the accredited laboratory would have to pay for the accrediting
organization to file this information with the Commission. CEA, Cisco,
ITI, Motorola and TIA support the proposed criteria for recognizing the
accreditations of laboratories outside the United States. Cisco states
that the change would be an enormous benefit for companies
participating in the global marketplace. ITI states that the proposed
change would simplify the conditions under which an accredited
laboratory may be accredited for testing to Commission requirements and
would be an improvement in the process of obtaining approval to use
foreign laboratories for testing for a DoC. IBM and ITI recommend that
we recognize the accreditation of foreign laboratories by National
Institute of Standards and Technology National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NIST NVLAP) or the American Association for
Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). They also believe that the language in
the rules should reference ``measurement facilities'' rather than
``open field sites'' so as not to preclude the use of semi-anechoic
chambers for testing.
46. We are adopting our proposal to not require accredited
laboratories to file a description of their measurement facilities with
us, provided the accrediting organization has submitted certain
information about the laboratories to the Commission. This information
must include the laboratory name, address (both the test site address
and company mailing address), contact information, the accrediting
organization's name, its designation number for the laboratory and the
date by which the accreditation must be renewed. In addition, the name
of the MRA must be provided for accredited laboratories outside of the
United States designated under the terms of a government-to-government
MRA. Consistent with the current requirements for filing measurement
facility descriptions, the information submitted by the accrediting
organization must also include an FCC Registration Number (FRN), which
is required for all organizations doing business with the Commission,
and a ``yes/no'' indication as to whether the laboratory will perform
testing on a contract basis. This will reduce the burden on accredited
laboratories by eliminating the need for them to file duplicate
information with the Commission and an accrediting organization.
47. We disagree with Retlif and ACIL that this change would
significantly increase costs for laboratories. Accrediting
organizations already have the information that we need in their
records, and the Commission has developed an electronic system that
these organizations can use to quickly and easily transmit the
information to us. Further, accrediting organizations currently submit
certain information about the laboratories they have accredited in
paper form to the Commission, and we do not expect that a change from
paper filing to electronic filing of this information will result in
any increase in accreditation costs. We are not mandating accreditation
for laboratories, and laboratories that are not accredited may continue
to use the current procedure for filing test site description
information with the Commission to be placed on our test site list.
48. We also are adopting the criteria we proposed for accepting the
accreditation of laboratories located outside the United States, which
are that the laboratory has been accredited by a foreign authority and
recognized by the Commission under the terms of a government-to-
government Mutual Recognition Agreement or Arrangement, or that the
laboratory has been accredited by an organization whose accreditations
are recognized by the Commission. These changes will simplify the
conditions for accepting the accreditation of foreign laboratories by
eliminating the prohibition on foreign accreditors accrediting
laboratories outside their own country. The current rules already
permit NVLAP and A2LA to accredit laboratories outside the United
States, so there is no need for us to make a change to permit this as
requested by IBM and ITI. These changes address the concerns raised by
ITI in its petition for reconsideration filed in ET Docket 95-19, so we
are in effect granting that petition. We agree with IBM and ITI that
the rules should reference ``measurement facilities'' rather than
``open field sites'' so as not to preclude the use of semi-anechoic
[[Page 68541]]
chambers for testing, and the rules we are adopting reflect that
recommendation.
Additional Changes to Part 2
49. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to make additional changes
to part 2 of the rules to modify sections that need to be updated to
reflect the availability of more recent industry documents, or that
needed other minor revisions. We received comments supporting the
proposals and are adopting the following changes.
[sbull] Section 2.202 Bandwidths: add entries to the table of
necessary bandwidth calculations in paragraph (g) for newer digital
modulation types.
[sbull] Section 2.948 Description of measurement facilities: remove
references to expired transition dates and obsolete measurement
procedures, update references to reflect the availability of the new
ANSI C63.4-2001 measurement procedure, and to correct the Commission's
mailing address.
[sbull] Section 2.1033 Application for certification: re-designate
paragraph 2.1033(c)(17) on composite devices as paragraph 2.1033(d) to
correct a numbering error.
[sbull] Sections 2.1061 through 2.1065 Filing for Application
Reference: remove this procedure because it is not used.
50. In addition to these changes, we are adding the heading
``Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs)'' prior to Sec. 2.960
of the rules. This change clarifies that the subsequent sections refer
to the requirements for TCBs, and are not part of the requirements for
verification, which is the last heading prior to Sec. 2.960. Because
this is an editorial change, it can be made without notice and comment.
Changes to Part 18
51. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to delete certain rule
sections in part 18 that appear to be unnecessary. We received no
comments opposing these proposals, and remain convinced of their
propriety. We are therefore adopting the following changes.
[sbull] Section 18.103 Organization and applicability of the rules:
remove because it duplicates the table of contents for part 18.
[sbull] Section 18.105 Other applicable rules: remove because it
provides little information and is not necessary.
[sbull] Section 18.119 Importation: remove because it duplicates
portions of the rules in part 2.
Changes to Part 90
52. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to correct an error in
Sec. 90.203(k) of the rules concerning the certification requirements
for equipment used in the Private Land Mobile Radio Service (PLMRS).
Specifically, the Commission proposed to delete the requirement that
PLMRS transmitters in the 220 MHz band comply with minimum standards
for spectral efficiency that was erroneously in this section. This
error occurred when a summary of the Report and Order in ET Docket No.
97-94 streamlining the equipment authorization processes was published
in the Federal Register. This Report and Order modified Sec. 90.203(k)
by changing the term ``type acceptance'' to ``certification''
throughout, but made no changes to the rest of the section. For
clarity, the rule appendix in the Report and Order showed the entire
text of this paragraph as revised. Subsequent to the adoption of the
Report and Order, the Commission adopted a Memorandum Opinion and Order
in a separate proceeding that also revised Sec. 90.203(k). In that
action, the Commission removed the requirement for part 90 transmitters
operating in the 220 MHz band to comply with spectral efficiency
requirements. While the Memorandum Opinion and Order was adopted and
released after the Report and Order, a summary of it was published in
the Federal Register before the summary of the Report and Order.
Therefore, when the Report and Order was published in the Federal
Register, the spectral efficiency requirement that was deleted by the
Memorandum Opinion and Order was inadvertently placed back in the
rules.
53. On May 23, 2001, M/A-COM Private Radio Systems, Inc. (M/A-COM)
filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling, requesting that we clarify
that the spectral efficiency requirement should no longer be in Sec.
90.203(k) of the rules. M/A-COM notes that this section is incorrect
because of the two rule making items adopted by the Commission that
were published in the Federal Register out of sequence. We are
correcting this section by deleting the spectral efficiency requirement
that was removed by the Memorandum Opinion and Order, and are therefore
in effect granting M/A-COM's petition.
Changes to Part 95
54. Section 95.1115(b) specifies the out-of-band field strength
limits for transmitters operating in the Wireless Medical Telemetry
Service. We are correcting two typographical errors in this section
that arose when the rules were published in the Federal Register.
Specifically, we are correcting the field strength units of measurement
to read ``[mu]V/m'', rather than ``[mu]/m'' and ``[mu]m'' as they
currently appear in the rules. Because these are editorial changes,
they can be made without notice and comment.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
55. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\1\ an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, Review of Part 15 and other
Parts of the Commission's Rules (NPRM).\2\ The Commission sought
written public comments on the proposals in the Notice, including
comment on the IRFA.\3\ This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
conforms to the RFA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has
been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996,
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the
CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA).
\2\ See Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order in ET Docket
No. 01-278, 16 FCC Rcd 18205 (2001).
\3\ Id.
\4\ See 5 U.S.C. 604. We also note that, given the deregulatory
nature of our action, we may certify this action under 5 U.S.C. 605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Second Report and Order and
Memorandum Opinion and Order
56. Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and
section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 require the
Commission (1) to review biennially its regulations pertaining to
telecommunications service providers and broadcast ownership; and (2)
to determine whether economic competition has made those regulations no
longer necessary in the public interest. The Commission is directed to
modify or repeal any such regulations that it finds are no longer in
the public interest.
57. As part of the biennial review for the year 2000, the
Commission reviewed its regulations pertaining to telecommunications
service providers and broadcast ownership and recommended a number of
changes to those rules. While not specifically required by statute, the
Commission also reviewed parts 2, 15 and 18 as part of this process.
58. The Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order
makes several changes to part 15 and other parts of the rules.
Specifically, it:
(1) Relaxes the restricted band emission limits for the second and
third harmonics of low-power transmitters operating in the 24.0-24.25
GHz band.
[[Page 68542]]
(2) Removes the restriction on data transmissions by remote control
device because it may hinder the development of new types of devices,
and the distinction between control signals and data signals is
becoming increasingly blurred.
(3) Relaxes the requirements for radio frequency identification
(RFID) systems operating at 13.56 MHz to allow faster data
transmission. RFID systems use a small transmitter attached to an item
that transmits data identifying the item.
(4) Streamlines the labeling process for equipment authorized under
the Declaration of Conformity (DoC) procedure. As equipment becomes
smaller, it becomes more difficult to include all the information
currently required on the label.
(5) Changes the authorization requirement from certification to
verification (no application required) for transmitters operating below
490 kHz in which all emissions are at least 40 dB below the part 15
limit.
(6) Make minor corrections and updates to part 15 and other parts
of the rules.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
59. None.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply
60. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\5\ The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.''\6\ In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act.\7\ A small business concern is one which:
(1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 5 U.S.C. 604.
\6\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
\7\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the
RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless
an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
\8\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. The SBA has developed small business size standards for two
pertinent Economic Census categories, ``Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Communications Equipment'' (RTB) and ``Other
Communications Equipment,'' both of which consist of all such companies
having 750 or fewer employees.\9\ According to Census Bureau data for
1997, there were a total of 1,215 establishments in the first category,
total, that had operated for the entire year.\10\ Of this total, 1,150
had 499 or fewer employees, and an additional 37 establishments had 500
to 999 employees.\11\ Consequently, we estimate that the majority of
businesses in the first category are small businesses that may be
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. Concerning the
second category, the data for 1997 show that there were a total of 499
establishments that operated for the entire year.\12\ Of this total,
491 had 499 or fewer employees, and an additional 3 establishments had
500 to 999 employees.\13\ Consequently, we estimate that the majority
of businesses in the second category are small businesses that may be
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 334220, 334290.
\10\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
Manufacturing, Radio and Television and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing, ``Industry Statistics by Employment Size:
1997,'' Table 4, NAICS code 334220 (issued Aug. 1999). The number of
``establishments'' is a less helpful indicator of small business
prevalence in this context than would be the number of ``firms'' or
``companies,'' because the latter take into account the concept of
common ownership or control. Any single physical business location
is an establishment, and that location and others may be under the
common ownership of a given firm. Thus, the numbers given in text
may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category,
including the numbers of small businesses. Census data in this
context are available only for establishments.
\11\ Id.
\12\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
Manufacturing, Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing,
``Industry Statistics by Employment Size: 1997,'' Table 4, NAICS
code 334290 (issued Sept. 1999).
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
62. The Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order
streamlines the labeling requirements for equipment authorized under
the Declaration of Conformity (DoC) procedure. DoC is a self-approval
procedure in which the manufacturer has the equipment tested for
compliance at a laboratory accredited to make the required
measurements. There is an alternative procedure that allows personal
computers to be assembled using compliant motherboards and power
supplies with no additional testing required. Equipment that complies
with the applicable rules may be marketed without an approval from the
Commission, and must be labeled as specified in part 15 of the rules.
The Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order eliminates
the requirement for the phrase ``For home or office use'' to appear on
the label for all equipment subject to DoC. In addition, it eliminates
the requirement for the phrase ``Tested to comply with FCC standards''
to appear on the label for equipment that was tested as a complete
unit, although this phrase will still be required on personal computers
that were assembled from tested components. These changes will permit
smaller labels on equipment. These changes will not be required, and
small entities can change labels as they change and upgrade models.
63. The Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order
incorporates the ANSI C63.17-1998 procedure into the part 15 of the
rules by reference as the procedure the Commission will use for testing
unlicensed Personal Communication Service (PCS) equipment for
compliance. Our rules already provide that unlicensed PCS equipment
must comply with a number of specialized technical requirements
designed to prevent interference between devices. Specifically, there
is a defined ``spectrum etiquette'' that requires unlicensed PCS
transmitters to monitor the spectrum for other users before
transmitting, and to use a defined transmission format. There was no
procedure listed in the rules for testing unlicensed PCS equipment to
these requirements. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
C63 Committee recently completed work on a procedure for measuring
unlicensed PCS equipment, which the Second Report and Order
incorporates into the rules as the procedure that the Commission will
use.
64. Part 15 referenced the ANSI C63.4-1992 procedure as the one
that will be used for testing most intentional and unintentional
radiators for compliance with the rules. The ANSI C63 Committee
recently completed a minor revision of the ANSI C63.4-1992 procedure
that contains a number of clarifications to the testing procedures. The
Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order references the
new C63.4-2001 procedure in place of the older version
[[Page 68543]]
as the procedure that manufacturers should use for compliance testing.
65. The Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order
changes the temperature range for frequency stability measurements on
transmitters used in the Family Radio Service (FRS) under part 95 of
the rules. Most transmitters used in licensed services are required to
maintain their carrier frequency within a specified tolerance over a
range of voltage and temperature variations to minimize the probability
of interference to other users. At the time the FRS was established in
1996, a frequency stability limit was specified for transmitters, but
no temperature range was specified. The Commission staff informally
interpreted that measurements must be made to -20 degrees centigrade. A
1998 rule change to the equipment authorization requirements
unintentionally resulted in a new requirement to measure FRS
transmitters to -30 degrees centigrade. However, the staff continued
requiring measurements to -20 degrees centigrade in the interest of
fairness. To clarify our existing practice, the Second Report and Order
and Memorandum Opinion and Order specifically requires that FRS
transmitters be measured to -20 degree centigrade as the staff has been
requiring since 1996.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
66. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. As noted in section D, supra, the changes adopted in the Second
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order are deregulatory in
nature, which we expect will simplify compliance and reporting
requirements for all parties, particularly small entities. For example,
we reduced the amount of information required on the label for products
authorized through the Declaration of Conformity self-approval process.
Manufacturers will be permitted to use the simplified label as soon as
the rules become effective, but are not required to do so.
68. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the
Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, including
this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the
Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order and
Memorandum Opinion and Order, including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Ordering Clauses
69. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and
303(r), this Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order
is adopted and parts 2, 15, 18, 90 and 95 of the Commission's Rules are
amended effective January 8, 2004.
70. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the
petition for reconsideration filed by the Information Technology
Institute in ET Docket No. 95-19 on September 3, 1997, is granted to
the extent indicated herein. ET Docket No. 95-19 is terminated.
71. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the
petition for declaratory ruling filed by M/A-COM Private Radio Systems,
Inc. on May 23, 2001, is granted to the extent indicated herein.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 2
Communications equipment, Incorporation by reference, Radio.
47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment, Computer technology, Incorporation by
reference, Labeling, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
47 CFR Part 18
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
47 CFR Part 90
Communications equipment, Radio.
47 CFR Part 95
Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR parts 2, 15, 18, 90 and 95 to read as follows:
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303 and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
0
2. Section 2.202 is amended by adding seven entries to the end of the
table in paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 2.202 Bandwidths.
* * * * *
(g) Table of necessary bandwidths.
* * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Necessary bandwidth
Description of emission ---------------------------------------------------------- Designation of
Formula Sample calculation emission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Radio-relay system.............. Bn = 2K/t..................... Pulse position modulated 8M00M7E
K=1.6......................... by 36 voice channel
baseband: pulse width
at half amplitude 0.4
[mu]S; Bn = 8 x 10 6 Hz
= 8 MHz (Bandwidth
independent of the
number of voice
channels).
[[Page 68544]]
Composite transmission digital Bn = 2RK/log2S................ Digital modulation used 5M00K7
modulation using DSB-AM to send 5 megabits per
(Microwave radio relay system). second by use of
amplitude modulation of
the main carrier with 4
signaling states.
R = 5 x 10 \6\ bits per
second; K = 1; S = 4;
Bn = 5 MHz.
Binary Frequency Shift Keying... (0.03 < 2D/R < 1.0);.......... Digital modulation used 2M80F1D
Bn = 3.86D + 0.27R............ to send 1 megabit per
(1.0 < 2D/R <2)............... second by frequency
Bn = 2.4D + 1.0R.............. shift keying with 2
signaling states and
0.75 MHz peak deviation
of the carrier.
R = 1 x 10 6 bps; D =
0.75 x 10 6 Hz; Bn =
2.8 MHz.
Multilevel Frequency Shift Bn = (R/log2S) + 2DK.......... Digital modulation to 9M00F7D
Keying. send 10 megabits per
second by use of
frequency shift keying
with four signaling
states and 2 MHz peak
deviation of the main
carrier.
R = 10 x 10 6 bps; D = 2
MHz; K = 1; S = 4; Bn =
9 MHz.
Phase Shift Keying.............. Bn = 2RK/log2S................ Digital modulation used 10M0G7D
to send 10 megabits per
second by use of phase
shift keying with 4
signaling states.
R = 10 x 10 6 bps; K =
1; S = 4; B\n\ = 10 MHz.
Quadrature Amplitude Modulation Bn = 2R/log2S................. 64 QAM used to send 135 45M0W
(QAM). Mbps has the same
necessary bandwidth as
64-PSK used to send 135
Mbps;.
R = 135 x 10 6 bps; S =
64; Bn = 45 MHz.
Minimum Shift Keying............ 2-ary:........................ Digital modulation used 2M36G1D
Bn = R(1.18).................. to send 2 megabits per
4-ary:........................ second using 2-ary
Bn = R(2.34).................. minimum shift keying.
R = 2.36 x 10 6 bps; Bn
= 2.36 MHz.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Section 2.948 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3),
(b)(8) and (d) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows.
Sec. 2.948 Description of measurement facilities.
(a) * * *
(2) If the equipment is to be authorized by the Commission under
the certification procedure, the description of the measurement
facilities shall be filed with the Commission's Laboratory in Columbia,
Maryland. The data describing the measurement facilities need only be
filed once but must be updated as changes are made to the measurement
facilities or as otherwise described in this section. At least every
three years, the organization responsible for filing the data with the
Commission shall certify that the data on file is current. A laboratory
that has been accredited in accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section is not required to file a description of its facilities with
the Commission's laboratory, provided the accrediting organization (or
designating authority in the case of foreign laboratories) submits the
following information to the Commission's laboratory:
(i) Laboratory name, location of test site(s), mailing address and
contact information;
(ii) Name of accrediting organization;
(iii) Date of expiration of accreditation;
(iv) Designation number;
(v) FCC Registration Number (FRN);
(vi) A statement as to whether or not the laboratory performs
testing on a contract basis;
(vii) For laboratories outside the United States, the name of the
mutual recognition agreement or arrangement under which the
accreditation of the laboratory is recognized.
(3) If the equipment is to be authorized under the Declaration of
Conformity procedure, the laboratory making the measurements must be
accredited in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
(b) * * *
(8) For a measurement facility that will be used for testing
radiated emissions, a plot of site attenuation data taken pursuant to
the procedures contained in Sections 5.4.6 through 5.5 of the following
procedure: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.4-2001,
entitled ``American National Standard for 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 American
National Standards Institute on June 22, 2001 as document number
SH94908. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies of C63.4-2001 may be obtained from: IEEE Customer
Service, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, or UPS only IEEE
Customer Service, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854; telephone 1-800-
678-4333 or +1-732-981-0600 (outside the United States and Canada).
Copies of ANSI C63.4-2001 may be inspected at the following locations:
(i) Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Office
of Engineering and Technology (Room 7-B144), Washington, DC 20554,
(ii) Federal Communications Commission Laboratory, 7435 Oakland
Mills Road, Columbia, MD 21046, or
(iii) Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,
NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
* * * * *
(d) A laboratory that has been accredited with a scope covering the
required measurements shall be deemed competent to test and submit test
data for equipment subject to verification, DoC and certification. Such
a laboratory shall be accredited by an approved accreditation
organization based on the International Organization for
Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC)
Standard 17025, ``General Requirements for the Competence of
Calibration and Testing Laboratories.'' The organization accrediting
the laboratory must be approved by the Commission's Office of
Engineering and Technology, as indicated in Sec. 0.241 of this
chapter, to perform such accreditation based on ISO/IEC 58,
``Calibration and Testing Laboratory Accreditation Systems--General
Requirements for Operation and Recognition.'' The frequency for
revalidation of the test site and the information that is required to
be filed, or retained by the testing party shall comply with the
requirements established by the accrediting organization. However, in
all cases, test site revalidation shall occur on an interval not to
exceed two years.
(e) The accreditation of a laboratory located outside of the United
States, or
[[Page 68545]]
its possessions, will be acceptable only under one of the following
conditions:
(1) If the accredited laboratory has been designated by a foreign
designating authority and recognized by the Commission under the terms
of a government-to-government Mutual Recognition Agreement/Arrangement;
or
(2) If the laboratory has been recognized by the Commission as
being accredited by an organization that has entered into an
arrangement between accrediting organizations and the arrangement has
been recognized by the Commission.
0
4. The following undesignated center heading is inserted before Sec.
2.960 to read as follows: ``Telecommunication Certification Bodies
(TCBs)''.
* * * * *
Sec. 2.1033 [Amended]
0
5. Section 2.1033 is amended by redesignating paragraph (c)(17) as
paragraph (e).
0
6. Section 2.1055 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.1055 Measurements required: Frequency stability.
(a) * * *
(2) From -20[deg] to +50[deg] centigrade for equipment to be
licensed for use in the Maritime Services under part 80 of this
chapter, except for Class A, B, and S Emergency Position Indicating
Radiobeacons (EPIRBS), and equipment to be licensed for use above 952
MHz at operational fixed stations in all services, stations in the
Local Television Transmission Service and Point-to-Point Microwave
Radio Service under part 21 of this chapter, equipment licensed for use
aboard aircraft in the Aviation Services under part 87 of this chapter,
and equipment authorized for use in the Family Radio Service under part
95 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
7. The undesignated center heading ``FILING FOR APPLICATION REFERENCE''
before Sec. 2.1061 is removed.
Sec. Sec. 2.1061 through 2.1065 [Removed]
0
8. Sections 2.1061 through 2.1065 are removed.
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
0
9.The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307, 336 and 544A.
0
10. Section 15.19 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and
(b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.19 Labeling requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) If the product is authorized based on testing of the product or
system; or
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09DE03.000
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09DE03.001
* * * * *
0
11. Section 15.21 is amended by adding the following sentence to the
end of the section to read as follows:
Sec. 15.21 Information to user.
* * * In cases where the manual is provided only in a form other
than paper, such as on a computer disk or over the Internet, the
information required by this section may be included in the manual in
that alternative form, provided the user can reasonably be expected to
have the capability to access information in that form.
0
12. Section 15.27 is amended by adding the following sentence to the
end of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.27 Special accessories.
(a) * * * In cases where the manual is provided only in a form
other than paper, such as on a computer disk or over the Internet, the
information required by this section may be included in the manual in
that alternative form, provided the user can reasonably be expected to
have the capability to access information in that form.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 15.31 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 15.31 Measurement standards.
(a) The following measurement procedures are used by the Commission
to determine compliance with the technical requirements in this part.
Except where noted, copies of these procedures are available from the
Commission's current duplicating contractor whose name and address are
available from the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322).
[[Page 68546]]
(1) FCC/OET MP-2: Measurement of UHF Noise Figures of TV Receivers.
(2) Unlicensed Personal Communication Service (UPCS) devices are to
be measured for compliance using ANSI C63.17-1998: ``Methods of
Measurement of the Electromagnetic and Operational Compatibility of
Unlicensed Personal Communications Services (UPCS) Devices'',
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38). This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(3) Other intentional and unintentional radiators are to be
measured for compliance using the following procedure excluding
sections 4.1, 5.2, 5.7, 9 and 14: ANSI C63.4-2001: ``Methods of
Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and
Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 15.38). This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Note to Paragraph (a)(3): Digital devices tested to show
compliance with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 15.107(e) and 15.109(g)
must be tested following the ANSI C63.4 procedure described in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 15.38 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(6) and adding
paragraph (b)(12) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.38 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) ANSI C63.4--2001: ``Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise
Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the
Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz'', 2001, IBR approved for Sec. 15.31, except
for sections 4.1, 5.2, 5.7, 9 and 14.
* * * * *
(12) ANSI C63.17-1998: ``Methods of Measurement of the
Electromagnetic and Operational Compatibility of Unlicensed Personal
Communications Services (UPCS) Devices'', 1998, IBR approved for Sec.
15.31.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 15.105 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 15.105 Information to the user.
* * * * *
(e) In cases where the manual is provided only in a form other than
paper, such as on a computer disk or over the Internet, the information
required by this section may be included in the manual in that
alternative form, provided the user can reasonably be expected to have
the capability to access information in that form.
Sec. 15.118 [Amended]
0
16. Section 15.118(b) is amended by removing ``1919 M Street, NW.,
Dockets Branch (Room 239),'' and adding in its place, ``445 12th
Street, SW.,''
Sec. 15.120 [Amended]
0
17. Section 15.120(d) is amended by removing ``2000 M Street, NW,
Technical Information Center (Suite 230),'' and adding in its place,
``445 12th Street, SW., ''
0
18. Section 15.201 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 15.201 Equipment authorization requirement.
(a) Intentional radiators operated as carrier current systems,
devices operated under the provisions of Sec. Sec. 15.211, 15.213, and
15.221, and devices operating below 490 kHz in which all emissions are
at least 40 dB below the limits in Sec. 15.209 shall be verified
pursuant to the procedures in Subpart J of part 2 of this chapter prior
to marketing.
* * * * *
0
19. Section 15.205 is amended by adding paragraphs (d)(7), (d)(8) and
(d)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.205 Restricted bands of operation.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) Devices operated pursuant to Sec. 15.225 are exempt from
complying with this section for the 13.36-13.41 MHz band only.
(8) Devices operated in the 24.075-24.175 GHz band under Sec.
15.245 are exempt from complying with the requirements of this section
for the 48.15-48.35 GHz and 72.225-72.525 GHz bands only, and shall not
exceed the limits specified in Sec. 15.245(b).
(9) Devices operated in the 24.0-24.25 GHz band under Sec. 15.249
are exempt from complying with the requirements of this section for the
48.0-48.5 GHz and 72.0-72.75 GHz bands only, and shall not exceed the
limits specified in Sec. 15.249(a).
* * * * *
0
20. Section 15.225 is revised to read as follows.
Sec. 15.225 Operation within the band 13.110-14.010 MHz.
(a) The field strength of any emissions within the band 13.553-
13.567 MHz shall not exceed 15,848 microvolts/meter at 30 meters.
(b) Within the bands 13.410-13.553 MHz and 13.567-13.710 MHz, the
field strength of any emissions shall not exceed 334 microvolts/meter
at 30 meters.
(c) Within the bands 13.110-13.410 MHz and 13.710-14.010 MHz the
field strength of any emissions shall not exceed 106 microvolts/meter
at 30 meters.
(d) The field strength of any emissions appearing outside of the
13.110-14.010 MHz band shall not exceed the general radiated emission
limits in Sec. 15.209.
(e) The frequency tolerance of the carrier signal shall be
maintained within +/-0.01% of the operating frequency over a
temperature variation of -20 degrees to +50 degrees C at normal supply
voltage, and for a variation in the primary supply voltage from 85% to
115% of the rated supply voltage at a temperature of 20 degrees C. For
battery operated equipment, the equipment tests shall be performed
using a new battery.
(f) In the case of radio frequency powered tags designed to operate
with a device authorized under this section, the tag may be approved
with the device or be considered as a separate device subject to its
own authorization. Powered tags approved with a device under a single
application shall be labeled with the same identification number as the
device.
0
21. Section 15.231 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text and (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.231 Periodic operation in the band 40.66--40.70 MHz and above
70 MHz.
(a) The provisions of this section are restricted to periodic
operation within the band 40.66-40.70 MHz and above 70 MHz. Except as
shown in paragraph (e) of this section, the intentional radiator is
restricted to the transmission of a control signal such as those used
with alarm systems, door openers, remote switches, etc. Continuous
transmissions, voice, video and the radio control of toys are not
permitted. Data is permitted to be sent with a control signal. The
following conditions shall be met to comply with the provisions for
this periodic operation:
* * * * *
(3) Periodic transmissions at regular predetermined intervals are
not permitted. However, polling or supervision transmissions, including
data, to determine system integrity of transmitters used in security or
safety applications are allowed if the total duration of transmissions
does not exceed more than two seconds per hour for each transmitter.
There is no limit on the number of individual transmissions,
[[Page 68547]]
provided the total transmission time does not exceed two seconds per
hour.
* * * * *
0
22. Section 15.245 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(i) and the
first sentence of paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.245 Operation within the bands 902-928 MHz, 2435-2465 MHz,
5785-5815 MHz, 10500-10550 MHz, and 24075-24175 MHz.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) For the second and third harmonics of field disturbance sensors
operating in the 24075-24175 MHz band and for other field disturbance
sensors designed for use only within a building or to open building
doors, 25.0 mV/m.
* * * * *
(iii) Field disturbance sensors designed to be used in motor
vehicles or aircraft must include features to prevent continuous
operation unless their emissions in the restricted bands, other than
the second and third harmonics from devices operating in the 24075-
24175 MHz band, fully comply with the limits given in Sec. 15.209. * *
*
* * * * *
0
23. Section 15.255 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 15.255 Operation within the band 57-64 GHz.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) The average emission levels shall be calculated, based on the
measured peak levels, over the actual time period during which
transmission occurs.
* * * * *
PART 18--INDUSTRIAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
0
24. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 4, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307.
Sec. 18.103 [Removed]
0
25. Section 18.103 is removed.
Sec. 18.105 [Removed]
0
26. Section 18.105 is removed.
Sec. 18.119 [Removed]
0
27. Section 18.119 is removed.
PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
0
28. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161,
303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).
0
29. Section 90.203 is amended by revising paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.203 Certification required.
* * * * *
(k) For transmitters operating on frequencies in the 220-222 MHz
band, certification will only be granted for equipment with channel
bandwidths up to 5 kHz, except that certification will be granted for
equipment operating on 220-222 MHz band Channels 1 through 160
(220.0025 through 220.7975/221.0025 through 221.7975), 171 through 180
(220.8525 through 220.8975/221.8525 through 221.8975), and 186 through
200 (220.9275 through 220.9975/221.9275 through 221.9975) with channel
bandwidths greater than 5 kHz.
* * * * *
PART 95--PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES
0
30. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082 as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154, 303.
0
31. Section 95.1115 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)
to read as follows:
Sec. 95.1115 General technical requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Out-of-band emissions below 960 MHz are limited to 200
microvolts/meter, as measured at a distance of 3 meters, using
measuring instrumentation with a CISPR quasi-peak detector.
(2) Out-of-band emissions above 960 MHz are limited to 500
microvolts/meter as measured at a distance of 3 meters, using measuring
equipment with an averaging detector and a 1 MHz measurement bandwidth.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-30314 Filed 12-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P