Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 41879

Appendix J To Part 74 [Removed]

10. 10. Appendix J is removed.

[FR Doc. 97–20402 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150–04–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 15

[ET Docket 95–19; FCC 97–240]

Equipment Authorization for Digital

Devices

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: By this Memorandum

Opinion and Order, the Commission

responds to three Petitions for

Reconsideration filed by the Information

Technology Industry Council (ITI),

Hewlett-Packard Company (HP), and

Intel Corporation (Intel) regarding the

Declaration of Conformity (DoC)

procedure for the authorization of

digital devices. This action is intended

to clarify and improve the DoC process.

DATES: Effective September 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Office of Engineering and Technology,

Anthony Serafini at (202) 418–2456 or

Neal McNeil (202) 418–2408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET

Docket 95–19, FCC 97–240, adopted

July 3, 1997 and released July 18, 1997.

The full text of this decision is available

for inspection and copying during

regular business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision also may

be purchased from the Commission’s

duplication contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036.

1. In the Report and Order, of this

proceeding, 61 FR 31044, June 19, 1996,

the Commission adopted rules to

streamline the equipment authorization

requirements for personal computers

and personal computer peripherals.

Specifically, the Commission

established the DoC procedure which

allows digital devices to be authorized

based on a manufacturer’s or supplier’s

declaration that the device complies

with the FCC requirements for

controlling radio frequency interference.

The DoC procedure requires laboratories

performing compliance testing to be

accredited under the National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program

(NVLAP) developed by the National

Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) or by the American Association

for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). In

the Report and Order, the Commission

delegated to the Chief of the Office of

Engineering and Technology authority

to recognize additional accrediting

organizations and to make

determinations regarding the continued

acceptability of individual accrediting

organizations and accredited

laboratories. Further, in the interest of

fair trade the rules specify that

laboratories located outside of the

United States or its possessions will be

accredited only if there is a mutual

recognition agreement (MRA) between

that country and the United States that

permits similar accreditation of U.S.

facilities to perform testing for products

marketed in that country.

2. The Report and Order also adopted

rules to permit the marketing, without

further testing, of personal computers

assembled from separate components

that have themselves been authorized

under a DoC. The Commission found

that this approach would provide both

flexibility for manufacturers and system

integrators and adequate assurance that

such modular computers will comply

with the FCC technical standards.

Testing procedures were adopted for

CPU boards and power supplies.

However, due to the difficulties

associated with determining the

shielding effectiveness of enclosures,

the Commission did not adopt rules to

authorize enclosures. To ensure that

systems assembled from modular

components would comply with the

technical standards, the Commission

adopted a two step test procedure for

authorizing CPU boards. The CPU board

must first be tested installed in a typical

enclosure but with the enclosure’s cover

removed so that the internal circuitry is

exposed at the top and at least two

sides. Additional components,

including a power supply, peripheral

devices, and subassemblies, shall be

added, as needed, to result in a

complete personal computer system.

Under this test, radiated emissions from

the system under test may be no more

than 3 dB above the limits specified in

section 15.109 of this chapter. If the

initial test demonstrates that the system

is within 3 dB of the limits, a second

test is performed using the same

configuration but with the cover

installed on the enclosure. Under the

latter test conditions, the system under

test shall not exceed the radiated

emission limits specified in section

15.109 of this chapter. If, however, the

initial test demonstrates compliance

with the radiated emission standards in

section 15.109 of this chapter, the

second test is not required to be

performed. The system must also be

tested to comply with the AC power line

conducted limits specified in section

15.107 of this chapter in accordance

with the procedures specified in section

15.31 of this chapter.

3. On July 16, 1996, the Commission’s

Office of Engineering and Technology

(OET) issued a Public Notice taking

steps to encourage the use of the new

DoC procedure. The Public Notice

addressed concerns that use of the DoC

procedure would be hindered by the

ability of NVLAP and A2LA to timely

process the initial demand for

accreditation by adopting a provisional

transition period of one year for

obtaining such accreditation. The Public

Notice also addressed issues concerning

the recognition of accreditors located

outside of the United States. A

laboratory would be permitted to submit

documentation to OET’s Equipment

Authorization Division stating that it

has filed an application for accreditation

with an approved laboratory

accreditation body and provide

evidence that it meets all aspects of ISO/

IEC Guide 25. Such labs will be

provisionally accepted by the FCC for a

period of one year, until August 19,

1997, or until the application for

accreditation has been acted upon,

whichever is sooner. A laboratory that is

denied accreditation by an approved

accreditation body will lose its

provisional acceptance. However, any

DoCs that were issued will remain valid.

4. Petitions for Reconsideration were

filed on July 19, 1996, by the ITI, HP,

and Intel. ITI requests reconsideration of

the laboratory accreditation requirement

for manufacturers’ and foreign test

laboratories to use the new DoC

procedure. ITI feels that manufacturers’

laboratories should not be required to be

accredited before using the DoC process.

Additionally, ITI argues that the

accreditation requirement should not

apply to foreign trading partners in

countries that currently do not have

similar accreditation requirements. The

Commission believes that laboratory

accreditation is a vital component of the

DoC procedure and denies the ITI

Petition for Reconsideration. HP

requests reconsideration or clarification

of the rules regarding use of the DoC

procedure by laboratories outside the

United States. HP feels that the mutual

recognition agreement (MRA)

requirement unreasonably discriminates

against test labs located in foreign

countries. The Commission finds that

the rules do not adequately address the

requirements for foreign laboratories
41880 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

and grants the HP Petition by clarifying

the requirements and incorporating into

the rules the July 16, 1996, public notice

entitled, ‘‘OET Takes Steps to Encourage

Self-Declaration for Computer

Compliance’’ (public notice). Intel

requests reconsideration of the testing

procedure for the authorization of CPU

boards to either take into account the

shielding effectiveness of enclosures or

to disregard emissions from peripheral

devices. The Commission agrees that

emissions from peripheral devices

should not adversely impact the testing

of CPU boards and grants, in part, the

Intel Petition for Reconsideration.

Finally, the Commission amends the

rules in several respects on its own

motion.

5. Accordingly, It is ordered that the

petition for reconsideration filed by

Information Technology Industry

Council is denied. The petition for

reconsideration filed by HewlettPackard Company is granted. The

petition for reconsideration filed by

Intel Corporation is granted as described

above and denied in all other respects.

Finally, it is ordered that part 15 of the

Commission’s rules and regulations is

amended as specified below effective

September 17, 1997. This action is taken

pursuant to the authority contained in

Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f),

303(r), 304, 307 and 405 of the

Communications Act of 1934 as

amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301,

302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304, 307 and

405.

Final Regulatory Flexibility

Certification

6. As required by Section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5

U.S.C. § 603, an Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was

incorporated in the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) in ET 95–19, FCC

No. 95–46, 60 FR 15116, March 22,

1995. The Commission sought written

comments on the proposals in the

NPRM including the IRFA. No

commenting parties raised issues

specifically in response to the IRFA and

a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(FRFA) was included in the Report and

Order in this proceeding. The rules

adopted in this Memorandum Opinion

and Order (MO&O) provide clarification

and further relaxation of the computer

authorization process requirements

adopted in the Report and Order. We

therefore certify pursuant to section

605(b) of the RFA that the rules adopted

in this MO&O do not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

7. The Commission will send a copy

of this final certification, along with

MO&O, in a report to Congress pursuant

to the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5

U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A), and to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration, 5 U.S.C.

§ 605(b).

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 2

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

47 CFR Part 15

Computer technology.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Amendatory Text

Title 47 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Parts 2 and 15 are amended

as follows:

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 2

continues to read as follows:

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

Communications Act of 1934, as amended,

47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303, and 307,

unless otherwise noted.

1. Section 2.909 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (c)(3) to (c)(4)

and by adding a new paragraph (c)(3),

to read as follows:

§ 2.909 Responsible party.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) Retailers or original equipment

manufacturers may enter into an

agreement with the responsible party

designated in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2)

of this section to assume the

responsibilities to ensure compliance of

equipment and become the new

responsible party.

* * * * *

2. Section 2.948 is amended by

removing the note at the end of

paragraph (d) and by adding paragraphs

(d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 2.948 Description of measurement

facilities.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) In addition to meeting the above

requirements, the accreditations of

laboratories located outside of the

United States or its possessions will be

acceptable only under one of the

following conditions:

(i) If there is a mutual recognition

agreement between that country and the

United States and that laboratory is

covered by the agreement;

(ii) If there is an agreement between

accrediting bodies that permits similar

accreditation of U.S. facilities to

perform testing for products marketed in

that country; or

(iii) If the country already accepts the

accreditation of U.S. laboratories.

(2) Organizations outside of the

United States that seek to become

accreditors may seek agreements with

approved United States accrediting

bodies to mutually recognize the

accreditation of laboratories. The

Commission will review such

agreements and will consult with the

Office of the United States Trade

Representative and other Executive

Branch agencies before accepting them

for purposes of the DoC procedure in

order to ensure that the respective

foreign countries accept United States

accreditations and do not impose

additional barriers upon United States

companies. Accrediting bodies located

outside of the United States will only be

permitted to accredit laboratories within

their own country for DoC testing.

(3) To facilitate use of the DoC

procedure, the FCC will accept a

laboratory that submits documentation

to OET’s Equipment Authorization

Division stating that it has filed an

application for accreditation with an

approved laboratory accreditation body

and provides evidence that it meets all

aspects of ISO/IEC Guide 25. Such labs

will be provisionally accepted by the

FCC for a period of one year (until

August 19, 1997) or until the

application for accreditation has been

acted upon, whichever is sooner. A

laboratory that is denied accreditation

by an approved accreditation body will

lose its provisional acceptance.

However, any DoCs that were issued

will remain valid.

3. Section 2.1077 is amended by

redesignating paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2),

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

and (b)(5) respectively and by adding a

new paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

2.1077 Compliance information.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Identification of the assembled

product, e.g., name and model number.

* * * * *

PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY

DEVICES

1. The authority citation for Part 15

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 4, 302, 303, 304, and 307

of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303,

304, and 307.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 41881

1. Section 15.19 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as

follows, redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)

and (b)(3) to (b)(3) and (b)(4)

respectively and adding a new

paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

§ 15.19 Labelling requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) If a personal computer is

authorized based on assembly using

separately authorized components, in

accordance with § 15.101(c)(2) or (c)(3),

and the resulting product is not

separately tested:

* * * * *

(2) Label text and information should

be in a size of type large enough to be

readily legible, consistent with the

dimensions of the equipment and the

label. However, the type size for the text

is not required to be larger than eight

point.

* * * * *

2. Section 15.31 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraph

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

follows:

§ 15.31 Measurement standards.

(a) * * *

* * * * *

(6) Digital devices authorized by

verification, Declaration of Conformity,

or for which an application for

equipment authorization is filed on or

after May 1, 1994, and intentional and

other unintentional radiators for which

verification is obtained, or for which an

application for equipment authorization

is filed on or after June 1, 1995 are to

be measured for compliance using the

following procedure excluding section

5.7, section 9 and section 14: American

National Standards Institute (ANSI)

C63.4–1992, entitled ‘‘Methods of

Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions

from Low-Voltage Electrical and

Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9

kHz to 40 GHz,’’ published by the

Institute of Electrical and Electronic

Engineers, Inc. on July 17, 1992 as

document number SH15180. * * *

* * * * *

(b) All parties making compliance

measurements on equipment subject to

the requirements of this part are urged

to use these measurement procedures.

Any party using other procedures

should ensure that such other

procedures can be relied on to produce

measurement results compatible with

the FCC measurement procedures. The

description of the measurement

procedure used in testing the equipment

for compliance and a list of the test

equipment actually employed shall be

made part of an application for

certification or included with the data

required to be retained by the party

responsible for devices authorized

pursuant to a Declaration of Conformity

or devices subject to notification or

verification.

* * * * *

3. Section 15.32 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) to

read as follows:

§ 15.32 Test procedures for CPU boards

and computer power supplies.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(1) Testing for radiated emissions

shall be performed with the CPU board

installed in a typical enclosure but with

the enclosure’s cover removed so that

the internal circuitry is exposed at the

top and on at least two sides. Additional

components, including a power supply,

peripheral devices, and subassemblies,

shall be added, as needed, to result in

a complete personal computer system. If

the oscillator and the microprocessor

circuits are contained on separate

circuit boards, both boards, typical of

the combination that would normally be

employed, must be used in the test.

Testing shall be in accordance with the

procedures specified in § 15.31.

(i) Under these test conditions, the

system under test shall not exceed the

radiated emission limits specified in

§ 15.109 by more than 6 dB. Emissions

greater than 6 dB that can be identified

and documented to originate from a

component(s) other than the CPU board

being tested, may be dismissed.

(ii) Unless the test in paragraph

(a)(1)(i) of this section demonstrates

compliance with the limits in § 15.109,

a second test shall be performed using

the same configuration described above

but with the cover installed on the

enclosure. Testing shall be in

accordance with the procedures

specified in § 15.31. Under these test

conditions, the system under test shall

not exceed the radiated emission limits

specified in § 15.109.

(2) In lieu of the procedure in (a)(1)

of this section, CPU boards may be

tested to demonstrate compliance with

the limits in § 15.109 using a specified

enclosure with the cover installed.

Testing for radiated emissions shall be

performed with the CPU board installed

in a typical system configuration.

Additional components, including a

power supply, peripheral devices, and

subassemblies, shall be added, as

needed, to result in a complete personal

computer system. If the oscillator and

the microprocessor circuits are

contained on separate circuit boards,

both boards, typical of the combination

that would normally be employed, must

be used in the test. Testing shall be in

accordance with the procedures

specified in § 15.31. Under this

procedure, CPU boards that comply

with the limits in § 15.109 must be

marketed together with the specific

enclosure used for the test.

* * * * *

4. Section 15.101 is amended by

revising the table in paragraph (a) to

read as follows:

§ 15.101 Equipment authorization of

unintentional radiators.

(a) * * *

Type of device Equipment authorization required

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

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

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

Superregenerative receiver ............................................................................................................................................. Certification.

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

All other receivers subject to Part 15 ............................................................................................................................. Notification.

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

Cable system terminal device ......................................................................................................................................... Notification.

Stand-alone cable input selector switch ......................................................................................................................... Verification.

Class B personal computers and peripherals ................................................................................................................ Declaration of Conformity

or Cerification.

CPU boards and internal power supplies used with Class B personal computers ....................................................... Declaration of Conformity

or Certification.

Class B personal computers assembled using authorized CPU boards or power supplies ......................................... Declaration of Conformity.

Class B external switching power supplies .................................................................................................................... Verification
41882 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Type of device Equipment authorization required

Other Class B digital devices & peripherals ................................................................................................................... Verification.

Class A digital devices, peripherals & external switching power supplies ..................................................................... Verification.

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

* * * * *

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

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 544

[Docket No. 96–130; Notice 03]

RIN 2127–AG56

Insurer Reporting Requirements; List

of Insurers Required To File Reports;

Correction

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Correction to final regulation.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to the final regulation

[Docket No. 96–130; Notice 03], which

was published Monday, June 23, 1997,

(62 FR 33754). The regulation related to

the information reporting requirements

for passenger motor vehicle insurers

that are required to file reports on their

motor vehicle theft loss experiences,

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33112.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosalind Proctor (202) 366–0846.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication on June

23, 1997, (62 FR 33754) of this final

regulation [Docket No. 96–130; Notice

03], which were the subject of FR Doc.

97–16334, is corrected as follows:

PART 544—CORRECTED

Paragraph 1. On page 33756, in the

first column, in the words of issuance,

remove the words ‘‘proposed to be’’.

Paragraph 1. On page 33756, in

amendatory instruction 1, the words

‘‘would be revised to read as follows’’

are corrected to read ‘‘continues to read

as follows’’.

Paragraph 2. On page 33756, in the

amendatory instructions 2, 3, 4, 6, and

7, the words ‘‘would be revised to read

as follows’’ are corrected to read ‘‘is

revised to read as follows’’.

Dated as signed: July 29, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–20478 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P