*Pages 1--42 from  Microsoft Word - 34174*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 

 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 In  the  Matter  of 
 Review  of  Part  15  and  other  Parts  of  the  Commissions  Rules 

 Amendment  of  Parts  2  and  15  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Deregulate  the  Equipment 
 Authorization  Requirements  for  Digital  Devices 
 M/  A-  COM  Private  Radio  Systems,  Inc.  Petition  for  Declaratory  Ruling 

 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 

 ET  Docket  01-  278  RM-  9375 
 RM-  10051 

 ET  Docket  95-  19 

 SECOND  REPORT  AND  ORDER  AND  MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  June  25,  2003  Released: 
 By  the  Commission: 
 I.  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 

 II.  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, 

 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. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 2 
 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. 

 III.  DISCUSSION 
 A.  Revisions  to  Part  15 
 1.  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 

 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. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 3 
 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  V/  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  V/  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. 
 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  V/  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  V/  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. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 4 
 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  V/  m  at  3  meters 
 from  devices  operating  in  the  24.0-  24.5  GHz  band  under  the  provisions  of  15.249  of  the  rules,  and  25,000  V/  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 

 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). 
 (continued.) 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 5 
 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. 
 2.  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  (Continued  from  previous  page) 

 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.. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 6 
 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 

 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. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 7 
 of  information  being  sent.  42  The  National  Telecommunications  and  Information  Administration  (NTIA)  expresses  concern  about  the  Commissions  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 
 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. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 8 
 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  NTIAs  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. 

 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. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 9 
 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 
 3.  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  V/  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  V/  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  V/  m  to  15,848  V/  m  at  a  distance  of  30  meters,  to  increase  the 
 maximum  field  strength  permitted  in  the  13.410-  13.553  MHz  and  13.567-  13.710  MHz  bands  from  30  to  334  V/  m  at  30  meters,  and  to  increase  the  maximum  field  strength  permitted  in  the  13.110-  13.410  MHz 
 and  13.710-  14.010  MHz  bands  from  30  to  106  V/  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 

 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 
 Commissions  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. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 10 
 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 

 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. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 11 
 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  V/  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  V/  m  at  30  meters,  and  to  increase  the  maximum  field  strength  permitted  in  the  13.110-  13.410  MHz 
 and  13.710-  14.010  MHz  bands  from  30  to  106  V/  m  at  30  meters.  In  addition,  we  will  permit  emissions  other  than  spurious  emissions  in  the  restricted  band  at  13.36-  13.41  MHz.  These  changes  will  allow  for 
 improved  operation  of  RFID  tags  in  the  13.56  MHz  band  without  adverse  consequences  to  other  devices,  and  will  allow  for  the  development  of  RFID  tags  that  can  work  in  both  the  United  States  and  other 
 countries.  As  proposed  in  the  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. 

 4.  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 

 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). 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 12 
 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 

 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. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 13 
 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, 

 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 

 (continued.) 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 14 
 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  devices  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. 

 5.  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. 

 (Continued  from  previous  page)  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. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 15 
 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  Commissions  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. 
 6.  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 

 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. 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 16 
 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 

 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. 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 17 
 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. 
 7.  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  users  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 

 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. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 18 
 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  users  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  Commissions  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, 
 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  Commissions  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). 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 19 
 manufacturers  can  provide  the  RF  safety  statements  information  in  hard  copy  form  if  they  choose,  but  we  will  not  require  them  to  do  so. 
 8.  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  V/  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  V/  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  V/  m  at  3  meters  for  Part  15,  18  and  95  devices  operating  exclusively  in  vehicles,  and  a  limit  of  8.6  V/  m  at  3  meters  for  such  devices  operating  in  all 
 other  environments.  137  Intersil  and  Motorola  oppose  Sirius  and  XMs  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. 
 9.  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: 

 o  Section  15.31  Measurement  standards:  remove  references  to  measurement  procedures  that  are  no  longer  used,  correct  the  Commissions  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. 

 o  Section  15.118  Cable  ready  consumer  electronics  equipment:  correct  the  Commissions  mailing  address. 
 o  Section  15.120  Program  blocking  technology  requirements  for  television  receivers:  correct  the  Commissions  mailing  address. 
 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. 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 20 
 o  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. 

 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. 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 21 
 B.  Revisions  to  Part  2 
 1.  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. 
 2.  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 

 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. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 22 
 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 
 organizations  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 
 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). 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 23 
 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. 
 3.  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 

 o  Section  2.202  Bandwidths:  add  entries  to  the  table  of  necessary  bandwidth  calculations  in  paragraph  (g)  for  newer  digital  modulation  types. 
 157  This  system  can  be  accessed  on  the  Commissions  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. 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 24 
 o  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  Commissions  mailing  address. 

 o  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. 

 o  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. 

 C.  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 

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

 o  Section  18.105  Other  applicable  rules:  delete  because  it  provides  little  information  and  is  not  necessary. 
 o  Section  18.119  Importation:  delete  because  it  duplicates  portions  of  the  rules  in  Part  2. 
 D.  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 

 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. 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 25 
 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-  COMs  petition. 

 E.  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  V/  m,  rather  than  /  m  and  m  as  they  currently  appear  in 
 the  rules.  Because  these  are  editorial  changes,  they  can  be  made  without  notice  and  comment. 
 IV.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS 
 55.  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis.  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. 
 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). 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 26 
 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. 
 V.  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  Commissions  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 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 27 
 APPENDIX  A:  FINAL  RULE  CHANGES 
 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. 

 *  *  * 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 29 
 3.  The  following  heading  is  inserted  before  Section  2.960: 
 TELECOMMUNICATION  CERTIFICATION  BODIES  (TCBS) 
 4.  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  Commissions  laboratory,  provided  the  accrediting  organization 
 [or  designating  authority  in  the  case  of  foreign  laboratories]  submits  the  following  information  to  the  Commissions  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. 
 *  *  *  *  * 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 30 
 (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. 
 5.  Section  2.1033  is  amended  by  renumbering  paragraph  (c)(  17)  as  paragraph  (d). 
 6.  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. 

 7.  The  heading  FILING  FOR  APPLICATION  REFERENCE  before  Section  2.1061  is  deleted. 
 8.  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: 
 9.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  15  continues  to  read  as  follows: 
 AUTHORITY:  47  U.  S.  C.  154,  302,  303,  304,  307  and  544A. 
 10.  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)  *  *  * 

 Trade  name  Model  number 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 31 
 (b)(  1)(  ii)*  *  * 
 Trade  name  Model  number 
 Assembled  from  tested  components  Complete  system  not  tested 

 *  *  *  *  * 
 11.  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. 
 12.  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. 
 13.  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  Commissions  current  duplicating  contractor  whose  name  and  address  are  available  from  the  Commissions  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 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 32 
 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. 
 14.  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. 
 15.  Section  15.118  is  amended  by  changing  the  Federal  Communications  Commissions  mailing  address  to  paragraph  (b)  to  Federal  Communications  Commission,  445  12th  Street,  S.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

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

 *  *  *  *  * 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 33 
 18.  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). 
 *  *  *  *  * 
 19.  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. 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 34 
 20.  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)  *  *  * 
 *  *  *  *  * 

 21.  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.  *  *  * 

 *  *  *  *  * 
 22.  Section  15.255,  paragraph  (b)(  5)  is  amended  by  changing  the  word  limits  to  levels. 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 35 
 Part  18  of  Title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  amended  as  follows: 
 23.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  18  continues  to  read  as  follows: 
 AUTHORITY:  47  U.  S.  C.  4,  301,  302,  303,  304,  307. 
 24.  Section  18.103  is  deleted. 
 25.  Section  18.105  is  deleted. 
 26.  Section  18.119  is  deleted. 
 Part  90  of  Title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  amended  as  follows: 
 27.  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). 

 28.  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: 
 29.  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. 
 30.  Section  95.1115,  paragraph  (b)(  1)  is  amended  by  replacing  the  term  /  m  with  the  term  V/  m. 
 31.  Section  95.1115,  paragraph  (b)(  2)  is  amended  by  replacing  the  term  m  with  the  term  V/  m. 
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 36 
 APPENDIX  B:  LIST  OF  COMMENTING  PARTIES 
 Parties  filing  comments 
 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.  DAusilio 
 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. 
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 37 
 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. 
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 38 
 Parties  filing  reply  comments 
 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. 
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 39 
 APPENDIX  C:  FINAL  REGULATORY  FLEXIBILITY  ANALYSIS 
 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  Commissions  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) 

 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. 
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 40 
 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 

 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. 
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 41 
 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. 

 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. 
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  149 
 42 
 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:  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). 

 183  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  c). 
42