**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | ET Docket 01-278             |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Review of Part 15 and other      | ) | RM-9375                      |
| Parts of the Commission's Rules  | * |                              |
|                                  | * | RM-10051                     |
| Amendment of Parts 2 and 15 of   |   |                              |
| the Commission's Rules to        | * | ET Docket 95-19              |
| Deregulate the Equipment         | * |                              |
| Authorization Requirements for   | ) |                              |
| Digital Devices                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| M/A-COM Private Radio Systems,   |   |                              |
| Inc.                             | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Petition for Declaratory Ruling  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**SECOND REPORT AND ORDER AND**

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: June 25, 2003 Released:**

By the Commission:

# Introduction

1.  In this Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, we
    are updating certain regulations for unlicensed radio frequency
    devices contained in Parts 2, 15 and 18 of our rules. Specifically,
    we are: 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, we are 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 are granting a petition for declaratory ruling
    filed by M/A-COM Private Radio Systems, Inc to the extent indicated
    herein.[^1]

# BACKGROUND

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 ten 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* that proposed a number of changes to Part 15
    and other parts of the rules.[^2] These proposals were based on
    recommendations contained within the *Biennial Regulatory Review
    2000 Updated Staff Report*,[^3] two petitions for rule making
    concerning radio frequency identification systems,[^4] and other
    staff recommendations. We received 153 comments and 58 reply
    comments in response to the *Notice.*[^5] On July 12, 2002, the
    Commission adopted a *First Report and Order* 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.[^6] This Second Report and
    Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses many of the issues
    raised in the *Notice* 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.

# DISCUSSION

## Revisions to Part 15

### 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.[^7]
    Only spurious emissions are permitted in restricted bands, and such
    emissions must comply with the limits in Section 15.209.[^8] 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.[^9] 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.[^10]

5.  In the *Notice*, 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.[^11] 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.[^12] The Commission also stated in the *Notice* 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.[^13] For example, the limit on harmonic
    emissions from a transmitter operating in the 24.0-24.25 GHz band
    under Section 15.249 of the rules is 2500 µV/m at 3 meters.[^14]
    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 µV/m at 3 meters.[^15]
    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.[^16] 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.[^17] 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.[^18] 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.[^19] 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.[^20] SARA claims
    that complying with the restricted band harmonic limits can double
    the cost of a 24 GHz transmitter.[^21] 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.[^22]

7.  We are eliminating the requirement that the second and third
    harmonics from field disturbance sensors operating under Section
    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 Section 15.209. We are also eliminating
    the requirement that the second and third harmonics from devices
    operating under Section 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 Section
    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 µV/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 µV/m at 3 meters from disturbance sensors operating in the
    24.075-24.175 GHz band under Section 15.245 of the rules.[^23] 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.[^24] 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.[^25] 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.[^26] 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 *Notice,* the Commission proposed to allow data transmissions
    by remote control devices operating under Section 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.[^27] 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.[^28] The Commission sought comment
    on the potential benefits of such changes to manufacturers.[^29] 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 Section 15.231 to avoid
    interference to other radio services.[^30]

10. ADEMCO, Cisco, Enalasys, Interlogix, ITI, JCI, Lifeline, Linear and
    Mattel all support removing the restriction on data transmission by
    remote control devices.[^31] Enalasys submits that removing this
    restriction will allow manufacturers to make more flexible and
    imaginative low power remote control devices.[^32] JCI states that
    permitting data transmissions would eliminate confusion about
    distinguishing between data and recognition codes, which are
    actually a form of data.[^33] 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.[^34] 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.[^35] Lifeline, Linear, JCI and Mattel
    support permitting voice transmissions by remote control devices,
    stating that this change would make devices more useful.[^36] JCI
    and Mattel support permitting video transmissions.[^37] Mattel
    states that this change would permit devices such as video baby
    monitors to 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.[^38] Mattel believes that harmful
    interference is unlikely from such applications because the devices
    would be battery operated with low radiated radio frequency
    power.[^39] 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.[^40] Cisco and ITI state that permitting a limited data
    stream for remote control devices would not lead to an increase in
    interference.[^41] 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.[^42] 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.[^43]

11. Several parties recommend rule changes beyond those proposed in the
    *Notice*. 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.[^44] Enalasys wants the Commission to permit devices used
    only by trained operators to operate with 10 dB higher power than
    currently permitted.[^45] 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.[^46] JCI believes that
    requiring transmissions to cease after 5 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.[^47] 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.[^48] 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.[^49] 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.[^50] It states that this rule is effective in
    ensuring a quiet band and promotes interference-free operation of
    Part 15 devices.[^51] 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.[^52] 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.[^53]

12. We find that the restriction on data transmissions by remote control
    devices in Section 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 *Notice.* 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 Section 15.231(a).[^54] On further review, allowing such
    operation would in fact significantly and unnecessarily expand the
    goal of the *Notice,* which was to allow manufacturers to develop
    devices that transmit identification codes, supplemented with the
    transmission of some additional data.[^55] The net result of the
    changes we are adopting is that operation under Section 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
    Section 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 Section 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 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.[^56]

### 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 µV/m at 3
    meters.[^57] Emissions outside this band must comply with the
    radiated emission limits in Section 15.209, which specifies a limit
    of 30 µV/m at 30 meters for emissions in the 1.705-30 MHz band.

16. In the *Notice*, 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.[^58] Specifically, the Commission proposed to
    increase the maximum field strength within the 13.553-13.567 MHz
    band from 10,000 µV/m to 15,848 µV/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 µV/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 µV/m at
    30 meters.[^59] 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.[^60] In addition, the Commission
    proposed to allow powered RFID tags and readers to be approved
    together and labeled with a single FCC identification number.[^61]

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.[^62] 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.[^63] Both TI
    and Philips state that the proposed changes would allow higher
    security, data transfer rates and read range performance in RFID
    applications.[^64] 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.[^65] 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.[^66]

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.[^67] 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.[^68] 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.[^69] 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.[^70] 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
    *Notice*.[^71]

19. We are adopting the changes proposed in the *Notice* to increase the
    maximum field strength permitted in the 13.553-13.567 MHz band from
    10,000 to 15,848 µV/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 µV/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 µV/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 *Notice*, we also will allow powered
    RFID tags to be 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.[^72] 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.[^73] 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.[^74] If an accredited laboratory
    finds that the equipment complies with the applicable rules, it may
    be marketed without an approval from the Commission.[^75] Equipment
    authorized through the DoC procedure must be labeled as specified in
    Section 15.19 of the rules, which provides two variations of the DoC
    label.[^76] 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.[^77] The compliance information statement
    supplied with equipment that was assembled from tested components
    must also identify the components used in the assembly.[^78]

22. In the *Notice*, 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.[^79] 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.[^80]
    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.[^81] 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.[^82]

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.[^83] 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.[^84] 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.[^85] IBM requests that we require the
    statement in Section 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.[^86] 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.[^87] 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.[^88] CEA
    requests that we provide sufficient lead time for manufacturers to
    plan and implement any labeling changes.[^89]

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.[^90] 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.[^91]

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.[^92] We
    believe that the vast majority of equipment subject to DoC is tested
    as a complete unit rather than assembled from tested
    components.[^93] 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
    Section 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.[^94] In
    addition, Section 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.[^95] 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.[^96]
    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.[^97]

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.[^98] 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 *Notice*, 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.[^99] 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.[^100] CEA and Motorola state
    that this procedure will help ensure that equipment complies with
    the Commission's rules.[^101] Cisco states that it was developed by
    qualified industry experts.[^102] 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.[^103]
    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.[^104] In the *Notice*, 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.[^105] 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.[^106] Verification simply requires the
    manufacturer to have the equipment tested and to retain certain
    information on file.[^107] 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.[^108]

31. The comments support eliminating the certification requirement for
    very low-powered intentional radiators, arguing that it is
    burdensome and unnecessary.[^109] AdvaMed, Cisco, Linear, Polhemus
    and Uniden argue that such low-powered devices have a low potential
    for interference.[^110] TRP and AdvaMed state that signals 40 dB
    below the Part 15 limit are below the ambient noise level and are
    difficult to measure.[^111] 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.[^112] 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.[^113] TRP states that compliance by low-powered
    devices can be determined by mathematical calculation and that open
    field testing is not necessary.[^114] 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.[^115] 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.[^116] 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.[^117]

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 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, as requested by Wacom.[^118]
    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 above, 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.[^119] 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.[^120] 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.[^121] In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed to
    permit manufacturers to provide this type of information in the
    instruction manual in whatever form the manual is supplied.[^122]
    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.[^123] 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.[^124] ITI states
    that providing warnings and information statements in the same form
    as the user manual will result in cost savings to the
    industry.[^125] 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.[^126] 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.[^127] 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.[^128]
    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.[^129] IBM requests that the proposed changes
    also apply to Section 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.[^130] 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.[^131]

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 Section 15.27(a) as requested by IBM, because that
    section lists information that must be included in 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.[^132] 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.[^133] 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.[^134] Linear believes that the current Part 15
    limit of 500 µV/m at 3 meters above 960 MHz should increase by 3 dB
    for every doubling of frequency.[^135] Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc.
    (Sirius) requests that we reduce the current Part 15 and 18 limits
    to 8.6 µV/m at 3 meters in the satellite digital audio radio service
    (SDARS) band.[^136] XM Radio, Inc. (XM) requests that we establish a
    limit in the SDARS band of 18 µV/m at 3 meters for Part 15, 18 and
    95 devices operating exclusively in vehicles, and a limit of 8.6
    µV/m at 3 meters for such devices operating in all other
    environments.[^137] 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.[^138] 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 *Notice*, 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:

-   **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.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Section 15.118 Cable ready consumer electronics equipment:**
    correct the Commission's mailing address.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Section 15.120 Program blocking technology requirements for
    television receivers:** correct the Commission's mailing address.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **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.[^139] 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.[^140] 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.[^141] 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.[^142] 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 Sections 15.207 and
    15.209 of the rules.[^143] 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.[^144]

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.

## Revisions to Part 2

### Family Radio Service Equipment Measurements.

41. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed to require that carrier
    frequency tolerance measurements for Family Radio Service (FRS)
    transmitters be made over the temperature range of --20 °C to +50 °C
    rather than ‑30 °C to +50 °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.[^145]

42. Cobra Electronics Corporation (Cobra) and Uniden America Corporation
    (Uniden) support the proposed change.[^146] Uniden states that
    measurements should be required only to --20 °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 °C with no reported difficulties 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 °C to +50 °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 °C (--4 °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 °C. We note that the --20 °C to +50 °C
    temperature range is consistent with the requirements in Part 15 for
    low power transmitters that require frequency stability
    measurements.[^147] Finally, as Uniden and Cobra stated, many FRS
    transmitters have been approved and marketed that have been tested
    to only --20 °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 °C to
    +50 °C, as proposed.

### Accreditation of Test Laboratories

44. In the *Notice*, 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 Commission, provided the accrediting organization
    submitted certain information about the laboratory to the
    Commission.[^148] 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.[^149] 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.[^150] 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.[^151]
    Cisco states that the change would be an enormous benefit for
    companies participating in the global marketplace.[^152] 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.[^153]
    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).[^154]
    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.[^155]

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.[^156] 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.[^157] 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.[^158]

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.[^159] 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 chambers
    for testing, and the rules we are adopting reflect that
    recommendation.

### Additional changes to Part 2

49. In the *Notice*, 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.[^160] We received comments supporting
    the proposals and are adopting the following changes.[^161]

-   **Section 2.202 Bandwidths:** add entries to the table of necessary
    bandwidth calculations in paragraph (g) for newer digital modulation
    types.

-   **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.

-   **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.

-   **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 Section
    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
    Section 2.960. Because this is an editorial change, it can be made
    without notice and comment.

## Changes to Part 18

51. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed to delete certain rule
    sections in Part 18 that appear to be unnecessary.[^162] We received
    no comments opposing these proposals, and remain convinced of their
    propriety. We are therefore adopting the following changes.[^163]

-   **Section 18.103 Organization and applicability of the rules:**
    delete because it duplicates the table of contents for Part 18.

-   **Section 18.105 Other applicable rules:** delete because it
    provides little information and is not necessary.

-   **Section 18.119 Importation:** delete because it duplicates
    portions of the rules in Part 2.

## Changes to Part 90

52. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed to correct an error in
    Section 90.203(k) of the rules concerning the certification
    requirements for equipment used in the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service (PLMRS).[^164] 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.[^165] This *Report and Order* modified Section 90.203(k)
    by changing the term "type acceptance" to "certification"
    throughout, but made no changes to the rest of the section.[^166]
    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
    Section 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 Section
    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.[^167] 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.[^168] We are correcting two typographical errors in this
    section that arose when the rules were published in the Federal
    Register.[^169] Specifically, we are correcting the field strength
    units of measurement to read "µV/m", rather than "µ/m" and "µm" as
    they currently appear in the rules. Because these are editorial
    changes, they can be made without notice and comment.

# Procedural Matters

55. [Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis]{.underline}. The Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this Second Report and Order and
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
    Act, *see 5* U.S.C. § 604, is contained in Appendix C.

56. This Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order
    contains new or modified information collections subject to the
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be
    submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
    under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other
    Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified
    information collection(s) contained in this proceeding.

57. To make cited sources more easily available to the readers, we are
    testing the use of hyperlinks to some FCC documents that are cited
    in this document. The World Wide Web addresses/URLs that we give
    here were correct at the time this document was prepared but may
    change over time. We do not have staff dedicated to updating these
    URLs, however, so readers may find some URLs to be out of date as
    time progresses. We also advise that the only definitive text of FCC
    documents is the one that is published in the FCC Record. In case of
    discrepancy between the electronic documents cited here and the FCC
    Record, the version in the FCC Record is definitive.

58. For further information regarding this Second Report and Order and
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, contact Mr. Hugh L. Van Tuyl, Office
    of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-7506, e-mail
    Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov.

# ordering clauses

59. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that 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 USC 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 as set forth in Appendix A
    effective 120 days after publication in the Federal Register.

60. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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 USC Sections 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. IT
    IS FURTHER ORDERED that ET Docket No. 95-19 IS TERMINATED.

61. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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 USC Sections 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.

62. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
    the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

# Appendix A: FINAL Rule Changes {#appendix-a-final-rule-changes .unnumbered}

Part 2 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

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.**

2.  Section 2.202 is amended by appending the following entries to the
    end of the table in paragraph (g):

**§ 2.202 Bandwidths.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(g\) Table of necessary bandwidths.

\* \* \*

3.  

4.  The following heading is inserted before Section 2.960:

"Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs)"

5.  Section 2.948 is amended by adding a new sentence to the end of
    paragraph (a)(2), by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(8) and (d) and
    by adding a new paragraph (e):

> **§ 2.948 Description of measurement facilities.**

\(a\) \* \* \*

\(2\) \* \* \* A laboratory that has been accredited in accordance with
subsection (d), below, 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 subsection (d) below.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

\(8\) 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 Standards
Department, 455 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855--1331,
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, S.W., 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, N.W.,
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 § 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.

\(e\) The accreditation of a laboratory located outside of the United
States, or 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.

6.  Section 2.1033 is amended by renumbering paragraph (c)(17) as
    paragraph (d).

7.  Section 2.1055, paragraph (a)(2) is amended by adding the words ",
    and equipment authorized for use in the Family Radio Service under
    Part 95 of this chapter." to the end of this paragraph.

8.  The heading "FILING FOR APPLICATION REFERENCE" before Section 2.1061
    is deleted.

9.  Sections 2.1061 through 2.1065 are deleted.

Part 15 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:

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

**AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A.**

11. Section 15.19 is amended by replacing the graphics in paragraphs
    (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) with the following graphics.

**§ 15.19 Labeling requirements.**

**\* \* \* \* \***

(b)(1)(i) \* \* \*

> ![](media/image1.png){width="0.7in"
> height="0.5013888888888889in"}**Trade name**
>
> **Model number**

(b)(1)(ii)\* \* \*

> ![](media/image1.png){width="0.7in" height="0.5013888888888889in"}
>
> **Trade name**

**Model number**

Assembled from tested components

Complete system not tested

\* \* \* \* \*

12. Section 15.21 is amended by adding the following sentence to the end
    of the Section:

**§ 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.

13. Section 15.27 is amended by adding the following sentence to the end
    of paragraph (a):

**§ 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.

14. Section 15.31 is amended by revising paragraph (a) as follows:

**§ 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).

(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 American National Standards Institute
    (ANSI) C63.17-1998, entitled "American National Standard for Methods
    of Measurement of the Electromagnetic and Operational Compatibility
    of Unlicensed Personal Communications Services (UPCS) Devices",
    published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
    Inc. on March 24, 1998 as document number SH94568. 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 section
> 4.1.5.2, section 5.7, section 9 and section 14: 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 Institute of Electrical and Electronics
> Engineers, Inc. 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.

\(i\) Copies of ANSI C63.17-1998 and C63.4-2001 may be obtained from:
IEEE Standards Department, 455 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ
08855--1331, telephone 1--800--678--4333 or +1‑732-981-0600 (outside the
United States and Canada).

> \(ii\) Copies of ANSI C63.17-1998 and C63.4-2001 may be inspected at
> the following locations:
>
> \(1\) Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Office
> of Engineering and Technology (room 7-B144), Washington, DC 20554,
>
> \(2\) Federal Communications Commission Laboratory, 7435 Oakland Mills
> Road, Columbia, MD 21046, or
>
> \(3\) Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
> suite 700, Washington, DC.

15. Section 15.105 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e)

**§ 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.

16. Section 15.118 is amended by changing the Federal Communications
    Commission's mailing address to paragraph (b) to "Federal
    Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C."

17. Section 15.120 is amended by changing the Federal Communications
    Commission's mailing address to paragraph (d) to "Federal
    Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C."

18. Section 15.201 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
    follows:

**§ 15.201 Equipment authorization requirement.**

\(a\) Intentional radiators operated as carrier current systems, devices
operated under the provisions of §§ 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 § 15.209 shall be verified pursuant to the
procedures in Subpart J of part 2 of this chapter prior to marketing.

\* \* \* \* \*

19. Section 15.205 is amended by adding new paragraphs (d)(6) and
    (d)(7).

**§ 15.205 Restricted bands of operation.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) \* \* \*

\(7\) Devices operated pursuant to § 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 § 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 § 15.245(b).

\(9\) Devices operated in the 24.0-24.25 GHz band under § 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, shall not exceed the limits
specified in § 15.249(a).

\* \* \* \* \*

20. Section 15.225 is revised to read as follows.

**§ 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 30 microvolts/meter at 30
meters.

\(e\) 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.

21. Section 15.231, paragraphs (a) and (a)(3) are revised to read as
    follows:

**§ 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:

\(1\) \* \* \*

\(2\) \* \* \*

\(3\) 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, provided
the total transmission time does not exceed two seconds per hour.

\(4\) \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

22. Section 15.245, paragraph (b)(1)(i) is revised to read as follows,
    and paragraph (b)(1)(iii) is amended by revising the first sentence
    to read as follows:

**§ 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.

(ii)\*\*\*

\(iii\) 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 Section 15.209. \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

23. Section 15.255, paragraph (b)(5) is amended by changing the word
    "limits" to "levels".

Part 18 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

24. The authority citation for Part 18 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 4, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307.**

25. Section 18.103 is deleted.

26. Section 18.105 is deleted.

27. Section 18.119 is deleted.

Part 90 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

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).**

29. Section 90.203 is amended by revising paragraph (k) to read as
    follows:

**Section 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 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

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.**

31. Section 95.1115, paragraph (b)(1) is amended by replacing the term
    "µ/m" with the term "µV/m".

32. Section 95.1115, paragraph (b)(2) is amended by replacing the term
    "µm" with the term "µV/m".

#  {#section .unnumbered}

# Appendix B: LIST OF COMMENTING PARTIES {#appendix-b-list-of-commenting-parties .unnumbered}

**[Parties filing comments]{.underline}**

1.  ADEMCO Group

2.  AdvaMed

3.  Al Brittain

4.  Albert Deshotel

5.  Armadillo Intertie, Inc.

6.  ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio

7.  Bernard K. Skoch

8.  Brian D. Allen

9.  Brian James Jarchow

10. Britain Rothrock

11. Bruce Perens

12. Bryan King

13. Central States VHF Society

14. Chamberlain Group, Inc.

15. Charles Byers

16. Charles P. Adkins

17. Chester Piotrowski

18. Christian O. Hunt

19. Christopher Howard

20. Christopher J. Osburn

21. Cisco Systems, Inc.

22. Cobra Electronics Corporation

23. Comsearch

24. Consumer Electronics Association

25. Cubic Corporation

26. Dale Drake

27. Daniel Kane

28. DataBrokers, Inc.

29. David A. Merriweather

30. David Batzle

31. David C. Counce

32. David Clark

33. David Donnelly

34. David HM Spector

35. David Wilkinson

36. Deerik W. Shryock

37. Dennis Swanson

38. Derwood Eadie

39. Donald C. Karon

40. Doran S. Platt III

41. Dr. Andrew E. Mossberg

42. Dwight B. Hill

43. Enalasys Corporation

44. Eric M. Funderburk

45. Eric Schmidt

46. Escort, Inc. and BEL, Inc.

47. Flash Parlini

48. Fred C. Jensen

49. Frederick C. Gantzer

50. Frederick Patton

51. Galen K. Watts

52. Gap, Inc.

53. Gary Rotter

54. George Washburn

55. Harold Tate

56. HID Corporation

57. Howard Malone

58. Hughes Network Systems, Inc.

59. IBM Corporation

60. Information Technology Industry Council

61. Interlogix, Inc.

62. Jack Daane

63. James A. Talbot, Jr.

64. James E. Reynolds

65. James Edwin Whedbee

66. James Hayes

67. Jeff Ballif

68. Jeff Stidham

69. Jeffrey D. Taylor

70. Jeffrey P. LaCosse

71. Jeffrey Peter Kershaw

72. John Douglas Lamb

73. John L. D'Ausilio

74. John Paul Dooley

75. John Robert Foulks

76. Johnson Controls, Inc.

77. Jose Cadrecha

78. Joseph A. Elcavage

79. Joseph A. Naujokas

80. Joseph H. Underwood

81. Joseph R. Semer

82. Joseph S. Keer

83. Kenneth P. Eckel, Jr.

84. Kevin Gibson

85. Kyle A. Yoksh

86. Lifeline Systems, Inc.

87. Linear Corporation

88. Loral Skynet

89. MagTek, Inc.

90. Mark S. Seidler

91. Martin Shinko

92. Mattel, Inc.

93. Matthew Becker

94. Melvyn L. Bernstein

95. Michael Brooks

96. Michael J. Linden

97. Michael M. Bradley

98. Michael Swiderski

99. Mike Baugh

100. Mike Moreken

101. Miller Edge, Inc.

102. MOBA Systeme

103. Morris Jones

104. Motorola, Inc.

105. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

106. Nicholas S. Frost

107. Nickolaus E. Leggett

108. Operator Specialty Company, Inc.

109. PanAmSat Corporation

110. Paul J. Tringas

111. Pete Myers

112. Philips Semiconductors

113. Polhemus, Inc.

114. Power Line Communications Association

115. RADAR Members

116. Ray Todd Stevens

117. Richard Adamo

118. Richard Lourette

119. Rick Eastwood

120. Roadrunners Microwave Group

121. Robert Brown

122. Robert S. Bennett

123. Robert Winkworth

124. Safety Warning System, L.C.

125. Sanjay Kapur

126. Satellite Industry Association

127. Savi Technology, Inc.

128. SES Americom, Inc.

129. Short Range Automotive Radar Frequency Allocation Group

130. Shure Incorporated

131. Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc.

132. Spacenet, Inc. and StarBand Communications, Inc.

133. Steven Bryant

134. Telecommunications Industry Association

135. Texas Instruments

136. Texas VHF-FM Society, Inc.

137. The Genie Company

138. The Whistler Group, Inc.

139. Tighe W. Kuykendall

140. Tom Masterson

141. TRP, Inc.

142. Uniden America Corporation

143. United Telecom Council

144. Verlin E. Reiter

145. Vincent F. DiMalta

146. VYTEK Solutions, Inc.

147. Wacom Technology Corp.

148. Warren Bruene

149. Warren J. Dickie

150. William A. Tynan

151. William F. Osler

152. William Owens

153. XM Radio, Inc.

> **[Parties filing reply comments]{.underline}**

1.  Ademco Group

2.  Amateur Television Network

3.  American Council of Independent Laboratories

4.  ARRL, The National Association of Amateur Radio

5.  Arthur T. Farrand

6.  Brent D. Oots

7.  Brice D. Hornblack

8.  Calvin Keli Lunny

9.  Charles E. Quentel, III

10. Christopher Nelson

11. Current Technologies

12. Curtis V. Rocke

13. Daniel J. Serafini

14. Duane Whittingham

15. Edwin S. Toal

16. Escort Incorporated and BEL Incorporated

17. Gerald W. Murray

18. Glenn Pederson

19. Harold C. Arnold

20. Hughes Network Systems, Inc.

21. Illinois Repeater Association, Inc.

22. Indiana Repeater Council

23. Interlogix, Inc.

24. Intersil Corporation

25. James Anderson

26. John A. Weeks

27. Kevin D. Adam

28. Lloyd W. Fink

29. Martin H. Leider

30. Martin Wilcoxson

31. Matthew Hamm

32. Matthew T. Weeks

33. Michael J. Borowiec

34. Moody Law

35. Motorola, Inc.

36. Patrick T. Weeks

37. RADAR Members

38. Ray Todd Stevens

39. Retlif Testing Laboratories

40. Richard Kelly

41. Satellite Industry Association

42. Savi Technology, Inc.

43. SES Americom, Inc.

44. Seymour Hersh

45. Short Range Automotive Radar Frequency Allocation Group

46. Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc.

47. Sky A. Borgenhagen

48. Stanley Vandiver

49. Steven Handler

50. Texas Instruments

51. The Chamberlain Group, Inc.

52. Timothy Thomas Lanners

53. TRP, Inc.

54. Upper New York Repeater Council, Inc.

55. Ward Wheaton

56. Western Washington Amateur Relay Association

57. William Richards

58. XM Radio, Inc.

# Appendix C: FINAL Regulatory Flexibility Analysis {#appendix-c-final-regulatory-flexibility-analysis .unnumbered}

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^170] 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* (*Notice*).[^171] The Commission sought written
public comments on the proposals in the Notice, including comment on the
IRFA.[^172] This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis conforms to the
RFA.[^173]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Second Report and Order and
Memorandum Opinion and Order**

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.

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.

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.

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**

> None.

**C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply**

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.[^174] The RFA generally
defines the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the
terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
governmental jurisdiction.\"[^175] In addition, the term \"small
business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business concern\"
under the Small Business Act.[^176] 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.[^177]

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.[^178] 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.[^179] Of this total, 1,150 had 499 or
fewer employees, and an additional 37 establishments had 500 to 999
employees.[^180] 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.[^181] Of this total,
491 had 499 or fewer employees, and additional 3 establishments had 500
to 999 employees.[^182] 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.

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements**

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.

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.

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 as the procedure that manufacturers should
use for compliance testing.

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**

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.[^183]

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.

[Report to Congress]{.underline}: 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. A copy of the Second Report and Order and
Memorandum Opinion and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also
be published in the Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^1]: *See* petition for reconsideration filed by the Information
    Technology Industry Council (ITI) in ET Docket No. 95-19 on
    September 3, 1997 and petition for declaratory ruling filed by
    M/A-COM Private Radio Systems, Inc. on May 23, 2001.

[^2]: *See* *Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order* in ET Docket No.
    01-278, ("*Notice*"), 16 FCC Rcd 18205 (2001).

[^3]: *See The 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review Report* and *Federal
    Communications Commission Biennial Regulatory Review 2000 Updated
    Staff Report* (*"Updated Staff Report"*)*,* FCC 00-456, dated
    January 17, 2001.

[^4]: *See* National Council for Information Technology Standardization
    Technical Committee B10 (NCITS B10) petition for rule making filed
    September 4, 1998, RM-9375 and SAVI Technology, Inc. (SAVI) petition
    for rule making filed November 22, 2000, RM 10051.

[^5]: *See* Appendix B for a list of commenters.

[^6]: *See* *First Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 01-278, 17 FCC Rcd
    14063 (2002).

[^7]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.205.

[^8]: Spurious emissions are those on a frequency or frequencies outside
    the necessary bandwidth for the transmission of information, the
    level of which may be reduced without affecting the transmission of
    information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions,
    parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency
    conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions. *See* 47
    C.F.R. §§ 2.1 and 15.209.

[^9]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.205. The table in paragraph (a) of this
    section states that all frequencies above 38.6 GHz are designated as
    a restricted band. However, paragraph (d)(4) of this section exempts
    transmitters operating under 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.253 and 15.255, which
    permit operation in the 46.7-46.9 GHz, 76-77 GHz and 57-64 GHz
    bands, from complying with the restricted band requirements.

[^10]: When the 40 GHz cutoff was established in 1989, the Commission
    considered that frequency to be the highest practicable with the
    state-of-the art in measurement techniques at that time. *See First
    Report and Order* in GEN Docket No. 87-389, 4 FCC Rcd 3493, 3510
    (1989). This was due to limitations on the upper operating frequency
    range of measuring equipment such as spectrum analyzers, antennas
    and amplifiers then available. When the Commission established rules
    permitting operation above 40 GHz in 1995, it recognized that
    measurements were possible above that frequency with equipment
    available at that time and amended Part 15 to require measurements
    above that frequency for the first time. *See First Report and Order
    and Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in ET Docket No. 94-124,
    11 FCC Rcd 4481, 4504 (1989).

[^11]: *See Notice* at p. 18208.

[^12]: *See Notice* at p. 18207.

[^13]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.245 and 15.249. Section 15.245 places a
    limit 25,000 µV/m at 3 meters on the harmonic emissions from a field
    disturbance sensor operating in the 24.075-24.175 GHz band. Section
    15.249 places a limit of 2,500 µV/m at 3 meters on the harmonic
    emissions from a transmitter operating in the 24.0-24.25 GHz band.

[^14]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.249.

[^15]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.205 and 15.209.

[^16]: *See Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 94-124, 11 FCC Rcd 4481
    (1996). *See* also 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.33(a)(2) and (a)(3). For a
    transmitter operating at 24 GHz, radiated emission measurements are
    required up to 100 GHz.

[^17]: *See* SWS comments at 1, SARA comments at 7 and Cisco comments at
    2.

[^18]: *See* SWS comments at 2-4.

[^19]: *See* SARA comments at 4.

[^20]: *See* SARA comments at 7.

[^21]: *See* SARA comments at 6.

[^22]: *See* NASA comments at 1. NASA requested that the following bands
    above 38.6 GHz be designated at restricted: 50.2-50.4 GHz, 52.6-59.3
    GHz, 86-92 GHz, 100-102 GHz, 109.5-111.8 GHz, 114.25-122.25 GHz,
    148.5-151.5 GHz, 164-167 GHz, 174.8-191.8 GHz, 200-209 GHz,
    226-231.5 GHz, 235-238 GHz, and 250-252 GHz. According to NASA,
    passive sensors are low-noise receivers similar to radio astronomy
    receivers, and are used to study weather patterns, climatic
    conditions, global warming, soil moisture, ocean temperature and
    wind speed, ice thickness, and the sensing of various atmospheric
    gasses. NASA claims that passive sensors are very sensitive to any
    microwave energy in their measurement bandwidth.

[^23]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.249 and 15.245.

[^24]: *See Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in WT Docket No. 02-146, 17
    FCC Rcd 12182 (2002).

[^25]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.231.

[^26]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.35(c).

[^27]: *See Notice* at p.18211.

[^28]: *Id.*.

[^29]: *Id.*.

[^30]: *Id.*

[^31]: *See* ADEMCO comments at 2, Cisco comments at 5, Enalasys
    comments at 2, Interlogix comments at 2, ITI comments at 8-9, JCI
    comments at 2, Lifeline comments at 2, Linear comments at 4, and
    Mattel comments at 1.

[^32]: *See* Enalasys comments at 2.

[^33]: *See* JCI comments at 2.

[^34]: *See* ADEMCO comments at 2.

[^35]: *See* Lifeline comments at 2.

[^36]: *See* Lifeline comments at 2, Linear comments at 4, JCI comments
    at 2 and Mattel comments at 1.

[^37]: *See* JCI comments at 2 and Mattel comments at 1.

[^38]: *See* Mattel comments at 1.

[^39]: *See* Mattel comments at 1.

[^40]: *See* Ademco reply comments at 4.

[^41]: *See* ITI comments at 8-9.

[^42]: *See* Cisco comments at 5.

[^43]: *See* NTIA letter to Edmond J. Thomas dated October 15, 2002 at
    3-4.

[^44]: *See* CEA comments at 2. Part 15 currently requires that a pulsed
    transmission be averaged over no greater than a 100 millisecond
    interval. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.35(c).

[^45]: *See* Enalasys comments at 2-3.

[^46]: *See* JCI comments at 5.

[^47]: *Id.*

[^48]: *See* Interlogix comments at 2-3.

[^49]: *See* Interlogix comments at 3-4. For example, a ten second
    transmission with a 50 percent duty cycle would actually be
    considered as a five second transmission.

[^50]: *See* Ademco reply comments at 2.

[^51]: *See* Ademco reply comments at 2-3.

[^52]: *See* Ademco reply comments at 3.

[^53]: *See* Ademco reply comments at 3.

[^54]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.225, 15.227, 15.235, 15.247 and 15.249.

[^55]: *See Notice* at p. 18210.

[^56]: Specifically, the percent of the time that a device could
    transmit would increase from 0.028% to 0.056%.

[^57]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.225.

[^58]: *See Notice* at p. 18212. *See* also NCITS B10 *Petition for Rule
    Making to Amend Section 15.225 of the Commission's Rules*, filed
    September 10, 1998, RM-9375. In the *Notice*, we also proposed to
    allow RFID systems operating in the 425-435 MHz band to transmit
    data at the level permitted in Section 15.231(b) of the rules, with
    a transmission time of 120 seconds and at least a 10 second silent
    period between transmissions. *See Notice* at p. 18213. We will
    address this matter at a later date.

[^59]: *Id.*

[^60]: *Id*. *See* also July 12, 2002 letter from NTIA to Mr. Edmond J.
    Thomas, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.

[^61]: *See Notice* at p. 18213.

[^62]: *See* CEA comments at 3, Chester Piotrowski comments at 1,
    DataBrokers comments at 1, Gap comments at 1, MagTek, Inc. comments
    at 1, Motorola comments at 2, NCITS B10 comments at 1, Philips
    comments at 1, TIA comments at 2-3, and TI comments at 1-2.

[^63]: *See* TI comments at 1-2.

[^64]: *See* TI comments at 2 and Philips comments at 1.

[^65]: *See* HID comments at 1.

[^66]: *Id.*

[^67]: *See* Cubic comments at 1.

[^68]: *Id.*

[^69]: *See* Cubic comments at 1 and Nickolaus E. Leggett comments at 1.

[^70]: *See* TI reply comments at 2-3.

[^71]: *See* NTIA comments at 2. *See* also July 12, 2002 letter from
    NTIA to Mr. Edmond J. Thomas, Chief, Office of Engineering and
    Technology.

[^72]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.5.

[^73]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.225.

[^74]: The manufacturer or importer is normally the responsible party
    for equipment authorized under the DoC procedures. Retailers may
    enter into agreements with the manufacturer or importer to become
    the responsible party. If equipment is modified by a party other
    than the responsible party, the party performing the modification
    becomes responsible for the compliance of the equipment. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 2.909(c).

[^75]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1071, *et seq.*

[^76]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.19.

[^77]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1077.

[^78]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1077(b).

[^79]: *See Notice* at p. 18215.

[^80]: *Id.*.

[^81]: *Id.*

[^82]: *Id.*

[^83]: *See* CEA comments at 4, Cisco comments at 6-7, IBM comments at
    1, ITI comments at 2, Motorola comments at 2-3, Shure comments at 3,
    Uniden comments at 4, and TIA comments at 4.

[^84]: *See* CEA comments at 4, Cisco comments at 6 and Motorola
    comments at 2-3.

[^85]: *See* Cisco comments at 6.

[^86]: *See* IBM comments at 2. Section 15.19(a)(3) requires that Part
    15 devices other than stand-alone cable input selector switches and
    receivers associated with a licensed radio service must be labeled
    with the following statement, "This device complies with Part 15 of
    the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions:
    (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this
    device must accept any interference received, including interference
    that may cause undesired operation."

[^87]: *See* Shure comments at 2-3.

[^88]: *See* IBM comments at 1 and ITI comments at 2.

[^89]: *See* CEA comments at 4-5.

[^90]: *See* IBM comments at 2, ITI comments at 3 and TIA comments at 4.

[^91]: *Id.* Software defined radios may be equipped with a means such
    as a user display screen to display the FCC identification number
    normally contained on the nameplate or label. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    2.925(e).

[^92]: Manufacturers will continue to be required to supply a compliance
    information statement with the device stating that it complies with
    Part 15 of the rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1077(a)(2).

[^93]: DoC was originally applicable only to personal computers and
    peripherals. Such devices can be tested as a complete system. The
    rules also contain provisions to allow personal computers to be
    assembled from boards and power supplies that had been tested for
    compliance without having to re-test the entire device for
    compliance after it is assembled. Subsequently, the Commission
    permitted many other Part 15 unintentional radiators such as
    receivers and VCRs to be authorized under the DoC procedure. There
    are no provisions for such devices to be assembled from tested
    components. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.101(a).

[^94]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.5.

[^95]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.19(a)(5).

[^96]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.19(b)(3).

[^97]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.19(b)(4) and 2.925(d)(2).

[^98]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.925(e).

[^99]: *See Notice* at p. 18216.

[^100]: *See* CEA comments at 5, Cisco comments at 12 and Motorola
    comments at 3.

[^101]: *See* CEA comments at 5 and Motorola comments at 3.

[^102]: *See* Cisco comments at 12.

[^103]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.201(b).

[^104]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803, 2.907 and 2.1033.

[^105]: *See Notice* at p. 18216. The proposed frequency cutoff of 490
    kHz was selected to avoid possible interference to the marine
    distress band at 495-505 kHz, and the AM broadcast band at 535-1705
    kHz.

[^106]: *Id.*

[^107]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.902 and 2.955.

[^108]: *See Notice* at p. 18216.

[^109]: *See* AdvaMed comments at 2, Cisco comments at 12, ITI comments
    at 9, Linear comments at 5, Polhemus comments at 3-4, TIA comments
    at 6, TRP comments at 5-8, TRP reply comments at 3-6, Uniden
    comments at 4, and Wacom comments at 1.

[^110]: *See* Cisco comments at 12, Linear comments at 5, Polhemus
    comments at 3, AdvaMed comments at 2 and Uniden comments at 4.

[^111]: *See* TRP comments at 5 and AdvaMed comments at 2.

[^112]: *See* TRP reply comments at 3.

[^113]: *See* TRP reply comments at 4.

[^114]: *See* TRP reply comments at 3.

[^115]: *See* ITI comments at 9.

[^116]: *See* Wacom comments at 1.

[^117]: *See* TIA comments at 6.

[^118]: *See* Wacom comments at 1.

[^119]: *See* TRP reply comments at 4 and TIA comments at 6.

[^120]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.21.

[^121]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.105.

[^122]: *See Notice* at p. 18217.

[^123]: *Id.*.

[^124]: *See* Linear comments at 5.

[^125]: *See* ITI comments at 4.

[^126]: *See* ITI comments at 4.

[^127]: *See* CEA comments at 6, Motorola comments at 3 and TIA comments
    at

[^128]: *See* Cisco comments at 9.

[^129]: *See* IBM comments at 3 and ITI comments at 4.

[^130]: *See* IBM comments at 3.

[^131]: *See* Nickolaus E. Leggett comments at 4 and Steven Bryant
    comments at 3.

[^132]: The Commission's rules recognize that compliance with the RF
    exposure guidelines for certain types of devices can be accomplished
    with warning labels and providing information to users. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 2.1091(d)(3).

[^133]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.109, which applies to unintentional
    radiators, 47 C.F.R. § 15.209, which applies to intentional
    radiators, and 47 C.F.R. § 18.305(b), which applies to emissions
    that appear outside of ISM bands.

[^134]: *See* ITI comments at 7-8.

[^135]: *See* Linear comments at 3.

[^136]: *See* Sirius comments at 2.

[^137]: *See* XM comments at 1-2.

[^138]: *See* Intersil reply comments at 7 and Motorola reply comments
    at 1.

[^139]: *See* CEA comments at 7, IBM comments at 5, Motorola comments at
    4 and TIA comments at 8.

[^140]: *See* ITI comments at 7 and Cisco comments at 12.

[^141]: *See* Retlif comments at 2 and ACI comments at 2.

[^142]: *See* IBM comments at 4.

[^143]: *See* IBM comments at 5. *See* also 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.207 and
    15.209.

[^144]: *See* IBM comments at 5.

[^145]: *See* *Notice* at p. 18217-18218.

[^146]: *See* Cobra comments at 5-6 and Uniden comments at 5.

[^147]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.225(c), 15.229(d), 15.233(g), 15.253(e),
    15.255(f), 15.321(e) and 15.323(f).

[^148]: *See Notice* at p. 18218.

[^149]: *Id.*

[^150]: *See* CEA comments at 6, Cisco comments at 10, IBM comments at
    4, Motorola comments at 4 and TIA comments at 7.

[^151]: *See* CEA comments at 7, Cisco comments at 11, ITI comments at
    6, Motorola comments at 4 and TIA comments at 8.

[^152]: *See* Cisco comments at 11.

[^153]: *See* ITI comments at 6.

[^154]: *See* IBM comments at 4 and ITI comments at 6.

[^155]: *Id.* A semi-anechoic chamber is a shielded room used for
    testing in which the walls and ceiling are lined with a material to
    absorb RF energy. It is designed to provide measurement results that
    are equivalent to those made on an open field test site. The
    Commission already permits the use of semi-anechoic chambers as an
    alternative to open field test sites. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    2.948(b)(8)(i) and Section 5.4 of ANSI C63.4.

[^156]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.8002(a) and 2.948(b)(7).

[^157]: This system can be accessed on the Commission's Internet site at
    www.fcc.gov/e-file/.

[^158]: Laboratory accreditation is only required for laboratories that
    wish to perform testing for the Declaration of Conformity (DoC)
    procedure. Laboratories that are not accredited may perform testing
    for equipment that is verified for compliance or certified by the
    Commission or a designated Telecommunication Certification Body
    (TCB). *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.948.

[^159]: ITI argued in their petition that the rules we adopted in ET
    Docket 95-19 for recognizing the accreditation of foreign
    laboratories imposed unnecessary trade fairness criteria. The
    changes we are adopting in this proceeding remove the criteria to
    which ITI objected.

[^160]: *See Notice* at p. 18219.

[^161]: *See* IBM comments at 5, CEA comments at 7, Motorola comments at
    4 and TIA comments at 8.

[^162]: *See Notice* at p. 18219.

[^163]: *See* IBM comments at 5, CEA comments at 7, Motorola comments at
    4 and TIA comments at 8.

[^164]: *See Notice* at p. 18219.

[^165]: *See Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 97-94, 13 FCC Rcd 11415
    (1998).

[^166]: Previously, the Commission had separate approval processes for
    equipment used in authorized services and for equipment that can be
    operated on an unlicensed basis. These processes were known as "type
    acceptance" and "certification" respectively. In the streamlining
    *Report and Order,* we combined the two processes into a single
    process called "certification."

[^167]: *See Report and Order (R&O)* in ET Docket No. 97-94, 13 FCC Rcd
    11415 (1998) and *Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O)* in PR Docket
    No. 89-552, GN Docket No. 93-252 and PP Docket No. 93-253, 13 FCC
    Rcd. 14569 (1998).

[^168]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 95.1115(b).

[^169]: *See* 65 FR 44008 (2000).

[^170]: ^ ?^ *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, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II
    of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^171]: *See* *Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order* in ET Docket
    No. 01-278, 16 FCC Rcd 18205 (2001).

[^172]: *Id.*

[^173]: *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.

[^174]: 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^175]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^176]: 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).

[^177]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^178]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 334220, 334290.

[^179]: 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.

[^180]: *Id.*

[^181]: 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).

[^182]: *Id.*

[^183]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).