Before the
	FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  	FCC 96-208
	Washington, D. C.  20554

                                  	)
In the Matter of              		)
					)
Amendment of Parts 2 and 15 of the 	)
Commission's Rules to Deregulate	)  ET Docket No. 95-19
the Equipment Authorization		)
Requirements for Digital Devices   	)


	REPORT AND ORDER

Adopted:  May 9, 1996              ;  Released:  May 14, 1996

By the Commission:


	INTRODUCTION

     1.  By this action, we are amending Parts 2 and 15 of 
our rules to streamline the equipment authorization 
requirements for personal computers and personal computer 
peripherals.   In particular, we are adopting a new 
"Declaration of Conformity" (DoC) procedure that will permit 
these devices to be authorized based on a manufacturer's or 
supplier's declaration that the computer product conforms 
with all FCC requirements.  Under this procedure, a 
manufacturer or equipment supplier will test a product to 
ensure compliance with our standards for limiting radio 
frequency (RF) emissions and will include a statement, 
attesting to compliance with those standards in the 
literature furnished with the product.  We are also 
permitting the marketing of personal computers assembled from 
separate components that have themselves been authorized 
under a DoC.  In such cases, no further testing of the 
completed assembly will be required.  

     2.  We anticipate that these rule changes will save 
industry approximately $250 million annually in 
administrative expenses, while continuing to provide the same 
level of protection against harmful interference from 
personal computing devices to radio communication services.  
In addition, the new rules will eliminate the need for 
manufacturers to obtain FCC approval before marketing new 
personal computer products and thus will allow such products 
to reach the marketplace more quickly.  We also believe that 
our relaxation of the existing regulations, which can be 
particularly burdensome for small manufacturers, will 
stimulate competition in the computer industry.  Further, 
these changes will align our equipment authorization 
requirements for personal computers with those used in other 
parts of the world.  This action is consistent with new 
authority provided in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that 
permits the Commission to authorize the use of private 
organizations for testing and certifying the compliance of 
devices or home electronics equipment and systems with FCC 
regulations.  


	BACKGROUND

     3.  Parts 2 and 15 of our rules specify regulations and 
technical standards to control RF emissions from personal 
computers and computer peripheral devices.  These rules 
ensure that such devices do not cause harmful interference to 
important communications services such as broadcasting, land 
mobile services, aeronautical and maritime communications and 
navigation systems, and amateur radio.  The rules specify 
limits on the radiated emissions and power line conducted 
emissions from personal computers and computer peripherals.  
The existing rules further provide that personal computers 
and computer peripherals must be authorized under our 
certification procedure before importation and marketing.  
The certification procedure requires submission of a written 
application, test report, and fee to the FCC Laboratory, 
which may also request a sample device for testing.  The 
certification process currently takes about 35 days, but can 
take longer if additional information must be submitted to 
complete or correct the application or if a sample is 
evaluated.  

     4.   In order to meet market demands, several 
manufacturers, distributors and retailers have been 
assembling computers using modular computer components such 
as enclosures, power supplies, and CPU boards.  This can 
result in a wide variety of possible computer configurations, 
each of which requires testing and authorization.  This can 
be burdensome for manufacturers, especially small assemblers 
that may build only a few units of any given computer 
configuration.  

   5.   In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice) in 
this proceeding, we proposed to streamline our equipment 
authorization requirements for personal computers and 
personal computer peripherals, based on several informal 
requests from computer manufacturers, distributors and 
retailers, test laboratories and other interested parties.  
In particular, we proposed to replace the current 
certification requirement with a new procedure based on a 
manufacturer's or supplier's declaration that the computer 
product conforms with all FCC requirements.  We further 
proposed to require that laboratories testing personal 
computer equipment for compliance be accredited under the 
"National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program" (NVLAP) 
developed by the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST).  We also proposed to permit the marketing 
of personal computers manufactured from authorized modular 
components without additional testing.  A total of 57 parties 
filed comments, and 13 parties filed replies to comments in 
response to this Notice.  A list of commenters is attached as 
Appendix B.

     6.  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), 
enacted on February 8, 1996, provides the Commission new 
authority to eliminate unnecessary regulations and functions.  
In particular, Section 403(f) of the 1996 Act amends Section 
302 of the Communications Act of 1934 to allow the Commission 
to:  "1) authorize the use of private organizations for 
testing and certifying the compliance of devices or home 
electronic equipment and systems with regulations promulgated 
under this section; 2) accept as prima facie evidence of such 
compliance the certification by any such organization; and 3) 
establish such qualifications and standards as it deems 
appropriate for such private organizations, testing, and 
certification."                            


DISCUSSION

A.  Equipment Authorization Requirements

Declaration of Conformity

     7.  In the Notice, we proposed to relax the equipment 
authorization requirements for personal computers and 
personal computer peripheral devices from FCC certification 
to a new self-authorization process based on a manufacturer's 
or supplier's declaration of compliance.  Under this proposed 
new equipment authorization procedure, a manufacturer or 
equipment supplier would test a product to ensure compliance 
with our standards for limiting RF emissions and would 
include a statement of compliance with those standards in the 
literature furnished with the equipment.  We proposed that 
this statement, to be entitled a "Declaration of Conformity," 
include the following information:  1) identification of the 
specific product covered by the declaration (e.g., by trade 
name and model number); 2) a statement that the product 
complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules; 3) identification of 
the compliance test report by date and number; and 4) 
identification by name, address and telephone number of the 
manufacturer, importer or other party located within the 
United States that is responsible for ensuring compliance.  
Marketing could begin immediately after testing confirms that 
the product complies with the standards and the DoC is 
completed.  We proposed that the party issuing the DoC would 
be the party responsible for ensuring compliance with all 
applicable FCC requirements and that this declaration must be 
executed before the subject equipment may be imported or 
marketed.  We further proposed that the responsible party 
furnish the DoC and test report to the Commission within 14 
days if requested.  

     8.  We also invited comment on alternative approaches 
for deregulating the equipment authorization requirements for 
personal computers and peripherals.  We observed that one 
alternative would be to retain the existing certification 
requirement, but to permit marketing to begin as soon as the 
application is filed.  We also noted that another option 
would be to relax the equipment authorization from 
certification to notification or verification.  We further 
noted that the proposed new process is very similar to the 
verification procedure.  The two principal differences 
between verification and our proposed self-approval process 
are that, under the new procedure:  1) manufacturers must 
include a copy of the Declaration of Conformity with the 
information furnished to the user; and, 2) testing 
laboratories must be accredited under NIST's NVLAP program.

     9.  The great majority of the commenting parties support 
our efforts to relax the equipment authorization process for 
personal computing equipment in some manner.  Most parties 
support our proposal for a new procedure based on a 
manufacturer's or equipment supplier's declaration of 
conformity.  These parties state that the new process will 
benefit both the computer industry and consumers by reducing 
costs and allowing new products and technologies to reach the 
market more quickly.  Several parties also submit that lower 
prices for equipment will make it possible for more consumers 
to afford and enjoy the benefits of personal computers.  For 
example, Apple and AT&T state that the new process would 
stimulate competition in the industry by reducing the amount 
of time it takes manufacturers to get products into the 
marketplace.  AT&T also notes that the DoC would provide 
consumers with additional information, including the name, 
address and telephone number of the party responsible for 
ensuring that the device complies with FCC regulations.  The 
Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) believes that 
our proposal is a reasonable balance of regulatory and 
marketplace interests.  It states that this proposal will 
benefit consumers by lowering equipment development costs and 
making technology available sooner.  ITI further states that 
interference will not increase as a result of the new 
procedure, since it does not eliminate the requirement for 
pre-marketing testing.  Motorola believes that the proposed 
process will continue to ensure a high standard of compliance 
while minimizing regulatory burdens.  HP believes the DoC 
approach is superior to other options, such as our 
verification procedure, because it would aid efforts to 
harmonize our equipment authorization requirements with those 
of other nations.

     10.   Several  parties recommend that we modify the 
existing certification process for personal computing 
equipment to permit marketing of devices upon completion of 
testing or upon submission of an application to the FCC.  
Vtech Computers (Vtech), for example,  recommends 
streamlining the existing process to permit marketing upon 
completion of testing.  The Association of Federal 
Communications Consulting Engineers (AFCCE) and Carl T. Jones 
suggest that we maintain the existing certification process, 
but allow manufacturers to market products upon submission of 
an application to the FCC.  PCTEST Engineering Laboratory 
(PCTEST) similarly recommends that equipment authorization be 
granted as soon as the application is logged in by an FCC 
applications examiner.  It also suggests that we permit 
electronic filing of applications through the Internet to 
speed the authorization of personal computers.

     11.  Other parties suggest that we apply either our 
notification or verification procedures to personal 
computers.  Washington Laboratories recommends using the 
notification process.  Canon, Compaq Computer Corporation 
(Compaq), Sony, Texas Instruments (TI) and Unisys recommend 
that personal computers be subject to the verification 
process.  EIA/CEG, while supporting the use of a DoC for 
computers manufactured from modular components, recommends 
that fully assembled computers be subject to verification.  

     12.  A number of commenting parties, including the 
American Radio Relay League (ARRL), the Association for 
Maximum Service Television (MSTV), Capital Cities/ABC, GMC 
Laboratories (GMC) and others, express concern that 
deregulating the equipment authorization procedures for 
personal computing equipment could lead to decreased 
equipment compliance and increased interference to radio 
communications services.  ARRL argues that the proposed 
changes would make it easier for manufacturers of non-
compliant equipment to market such devices and would also 
make it more difficult for the Commission to enforce 
compliance.  Capital Cities/ABC and others argue that 
increased enforcement efforts would be needed if such an 
approach is adopted.  Capital Cities/ABC submits that the 
current equipment authorization program for personal 
computers is the reason that the FCC does not receive 
significant complaints of interference from such equipment.  
Capital Cities/ABC states that the Commission should not 
lessen the procedures for preventing excessive RF emissions 
unless it has the resources, personnel and procedures for 
monitoring and enforcing the rules.  MSTV contends that 
permitting self-approval by parties that have a financial 
interest in the outcome of testing will result in decreased 
compliance.  These parties argue that we should not relax the 
current certification requirement for personal computers and 
peripherals.

     13.  With regard to the information to be contained in 
the DoC, AT&T, Compaq, EIA/CEG, IBM, the Information 
Technology Association of Canada (ITAC), Spirit, TI, and 
Unisys believe that including the test report number and date 
in the DoC is burdensome and unnecessary.  EIA/CEG argues 
that the DoC should only contain a notice that the equipment 
complies with Part 15 and the identification of the party 
responsible for ensuring compliance.  IBM and ITAC point out 
that any modifications to the equipment would require 
retesting and thereby necessitate costly revisions and 
reprinting of the product user manual that would provide 
little benefit to consumers.  ITAC indicates that only the 
name and address of the responsible party should be required 
in the DoC.  AT&T also suggests that the responsible party 
listed in the DoC should include the name, address and 
telephone number of the manufacturer or importer, if the 
manufacturer is not located in the United States.  TI 
suggests that a reference code be used to identify the 
responsible party.  Elite Electronic Engineering Company 
(Elite) recommends that the DoC include the name of the 
testing laboratory only if the tests are conducted by an 
independent laboratory.  

     14.  Several parties, including Apple, AT&T, Compaq, 
ITI, Bruce Reynolds, Sony, Unisys and Xerox, recommend that 
manufacturers have the option of providing instructions on 
how to obtain a copy of the DoC in the user manual, rather 
than including a copy of the DoC with each product.  Compaq 
indicates that the inclusion of a flyer insert adds an 
additional step in production that could cause added cost and 
delays due to errors during packaging.  Sony believes that it 
is unnecessary to include a copy of the DoC with each product 
and instead supports an expanded labelling requirement that 
provides information about the appropriate contact person.

     15.  Several parties discussed the proposed 14 day 
period for submission of the DoC and test report upon 
Commission request.  Computing Technology Industry 
Association (CompTIA), Gateway, and IBM believe a 14 day 
period is sufficient for providing a copy of the DoC to the 
FCC.  IBM requests clarification that the time frame begins 
at the time of receipt of the FCC request.  ITAC requests 
clarifications of the intention of the 14 day period and 
recommends adoption of a longer period.  ITI and PCTEST argue 
that 30 days is needed for submission of the test report to 
the Commission.  PCTEST also recommends that the test report 
and test sample be required to be held for three years.

     16.  Several parties, including Apple, the Coalition of 
Concerned Independent Testing Laboratories (CCITL), 
Compliance Engineering Services (CES), Dell Computer 
Corporation (Dell), Electromagnetic Engineering Services, 
Inc. (EESI), Mark Lapchak, and Bruce Reynolds, recommend that 
some form of FCC filing should be required as part of the DoC 
process.  Apple believes that manufacturers and suppliers 
should be required to submit a copy of the DoC to the 
Commission when a product is offered for sale.  CCITL 
suggests that a minimum FCC filing requirement be adopted and 
that the information provided on filings under this 
requirement should be listed on the FCC Laboratory's "Public 
Access Link" system.  CCITL proposes that the filing 
requirement include an identifying number, brief description 
of the equipment, photographs, DoC statement, and the 
identity of the test lab.  Dell recommends requiring that a 
copy of the DoC always be submitted to the FCC, rather than 
only upon request.  CES and EESI recommend that some form of 
FCC filing be maintained and support continued use of FCC ID 
numbers.

     17.  Decision.  The record in this proceeding provides 
significant support for our efforts to relax the equipment 
approval requirements for personal computing devices.  We 
continue to believe that our proposal to establish a new 
procedure based on a manufacturer's or supplier's declaration 
of conformity is the most appropriate method for authorizing 
personal computers and peripherals.

     18.  We believe that the new DoC process will provide a 
number of important benefits for manufacturers and suppliers 
of personal computing equipment and that these benefits would 
accrue to businesses and consumers as well.  Initially, we 
observe that this new equipment approval process will permit 
manufacturers to introduce new equipment into the market more 
rapidly and to avoid a substantial portion of the costs 
involved in the current certification process.  We also 
believe that reducing the time-to-market of computer products 
will allow manufacturers and suppliers to compete more 
effectively in the market for these products.  Further, the 
new process will protect manufacturers' and importers' 
business interests by eliminating the premature disclosure of 
new products that occurs in the filing of applications for 
certification.  These improvements for manufacturers and 
suppliers can be expected to benefit consumers in the form of 
lower prices, additional product features and improved 
product quality. 

    19.  We do not agree with comments expressing concern 
that implementing the DoC procedure will result in increased 
non-compliance of personal computers and computer peripheral 
devices.  These devices must still be tested to ensure 
compliance with our standards.  As long as the measurement 
procedures are properly followed and testing is performed by 
a competent laboratory, there appears to be no valid reason 
why compliance under the DoC procedure should be any 
different than under our existing certification procedure.  
We also do not agree that it is necessary to mandate the 
automatic filing of information with the Commission.  The DoC 
will provide a clear indication that the product complies 
with our requirements and will provide a mechanism for 
identifying responsible parties should questions arise 
regarding compliance.  We believe that an additional 
requirement for filing of information with the FCC would not 
provide any added assurance of compliance and would create an 
unnecessary administrative burden.  In summary, we find that 
the new DoC procedure will substantially reduce the burden of 
equipment authorization on manufacturers and importers of 
personal computer equipment without significantly raising the 
risk that such equipment will cause harmful interference to 
communications users.  

     20.   We also observe that this new equipment 
authorization procedure is similar to product approval 
programs for digital devices employed in other parts of the 
world.  In Europe, for example, manufacturers are permitted 
to self-declare compliance with radio noise standards for 
personal computer equipment.  There is growing interest in 
the international harmonization of standards, test methods 
and product approval procedures to better facilitate trade.  
We have, in fact, taken actions in the past to harmonize the 
standards and measurement procedures for personal computer 
equipment with those accepted internationally.  We believe 
our DoC plan may advance the acceptance of U.S. product 
approvals for personal computers and their associated 
peripherals in other countries.  This could potentially 
provide U.S. manufacturers easier access to foreign markets, 
thereby creating jobs and enhancing U.S. economic growth.

     21.  We do not agree with the comments suggesting that 
it would be more appropriate to streamline our existing 
certification procedure, or to use our notification or 
verification procedures.  Streamlining the certification 
process or using the notification procedure would place a 
larger burden on both industry and FCC staff than the DoC 
approach, without a significantly increased benefit to the 
public.  Furthermore, there are potential problems with these 
approaches.  For example, if we were to permit products under 
certification or notification to be marketed upon submission 
of an application to the Commission, paperwork and other 
administrative errors in that submission could result in a 
manufacturer having to cease all marketing while problems 
with the application were corrected.  This could result in a 
costly burden to the manufacturer.  We also do not believe 
that our verification process would provide sufficient 
information and safeguards to ensure compliance with regard 
to computer technology, which is continuing to evolve 
rapidly.  Further, verification would appear inconsistent 
with international approaches for approval of personal 
computers and peripherals.

     22.  We agree with the comments that the requirement to 
include the name of the test laboratory and the date on which 
compliance testing took place would pose an unnecessary 
burden.  Computers and peripheral devices sometimes go 
through several modifications in short periods of time, each 
of which requires retesting.  Requiring the test laboratory 
information to be updated each time these tests are made 
could result in an administrative burden.  While this 
information will have to be readily available to the FCC, 
upon request, it generally serves no purpose for the consumer 
and therefore is not needed on the DoC.  We believe that it 
is important to include a copy of the DoC with the product 
either as a separate insert or in the user's manual, to 
verify compliance of a product and provide a readily 
accessible contact person for inquiries from consumers and 
the FCC.  We do not believe that providing the minimal 
information requested in a DoC will pose an undue burden.  
Accordingly, we will require that the DoC statement be 
included with the equipment and contain the following 
information:  1) identification of the specific product 
covered by the declaration, such as by trade name and model 
number; 2) a statement that the product complies with Part 15 
of the FCC Rules, similar to the statement currently required 
under Section 15.19(a)(3) of the regulations; and 3) the 
identification by name, address and telephone number of the 
manufacturer, importer or other party located within the 
United States that is responsible for ensuring that the 
equipment complies with the standards.  The DoC statement may 
be included as a separate document or may be included in the 
user's manual supplied with the product.

     23.   The party responsible for ensuring compliance will 
be required to submit, upon request, documentation verifying 
compliance, including test reports, to the Commission within 
14 days of such a request.  With the availability of express 
and overnight delivery services, 14 days is ample time to 
submit documentation that is required to already be readily 
available.  We clarify that this 14 day period begins upon 
the delivery of the request to the responsible party.  
Finally, we do not agree with the request that the test 
report and test sample should be held for three years.  We 
believe that it is important to retain this information for a 
sufficient length of time to verify compliance with our rules 
in enforcement matters.  We note that under the certification 
process, where the Commission has reviewed the application 
and data and granted an authorization, we require the 
retention of records for one year after the manufacturing of 
a product is discontinued.  However, under the notification 
and verification processes, where the Commission has not 
reviewed the application and data, we require the retention 
of records for two years after manufacturing is discontinued.   
Accordingly, since the new DoC process will not require prior 
review by the Commission and since we want to maintain 
consistency with our other equipment authorization processes, 
we will require the manufacturer to retain a record of all 
documentation for a period of two years after manufacturing 
is discontinued.

Labelling Requirement

     24.  Under our current rules, personal computers and 
peripherals must be labelled with an "FCC ID" and a general 
statement of compliance with the standards.  In the Notice, 
we proposed to require that personal computers and 
peripherals display a small logo to indicate compliance with 
FCC Rules.  This logo would be similar to the "UL" logo used 
by products that comply with standards developed by the 
Underwriters' Laboratories or the "CE" logo that indicates 
compliance with European standards, and would replace the 
existing FCC ID label requirements.  Comments were invited on 
the specific format for such compliance labelling.  We also 
invited comments as to whether this labelling is necessary 
and whether the benefits of this requirement warrant the 
costs.  No changes were proposed to the existing requirement 
to provide information in the user manual regarding steps to 
be taken in the event the equipment causes interference.     

   25.  The commenting parties support improvements to the 
existing labelling requirements for personal computers and 
peripherals.  Most parties recommend that we adopt a simple, 
easily recognizable logo.  Apple, Cannon, IBM, ITAC, and 
Bruce Reynolds support the use of a small compliance logo.  
They also recommend coordination with Canada and Mexico to 
develop a NAFTA logo as long as it would not cause a delay in 
the adoption of the proposal.  HP and TIA recommend use of a 
logo that is suitable for multinational use and support a 
simple logo that references the FCC or CISPR class.  Gateway 
agrees that a logo identification is necessary to provide 
reassurance to consumers that a product meets appropriate 
standards.  However, it submits that a North American logo is 
unnecessary, as Mexico and Canada currently accept the FCC ID 
for radiated and conducted emission compliance.  CKC and 
Compaq suggest that we recognize the CE mark as equivalent 
label to the FCC label.  

     26.  CompTIA supports the use of a simple label similar 
to the "Intel Inside" logo.  IBM and TI urge that the label 
include a "A" or "B" to designate the emission class of the 
device.  ITI and ITAC believe that a pictorial logo is 
appropriate for devices assembled and tested by manufacturers 
but urges adoption of a special label for computers assembled 
with modular components.  HP recommends that systems 
assembled from components should not indicate that the 
computer complies with Part 15.  It states that only systems 
that are tested as such should claim conformity on their DoC.  
Silicon Graphics believes simple text labelling is adequate 
and that an FCC logo is unnecessary.  However, it states that 
extensive labelling notifying the user of potential 
interference should be used for computers composed of modular 
components. 

     27.  EESI supports the use of a compliance logo and a 
text-based product label similar to the current label.  Intel 
believes that the current label is adequate, when coupled 
with the warning text required in the manual.  ICC proposes a 
modified version of the current label that would include a 
"DoC ID" number composed of codes for the grantee, NVLAP lab 
and the test report number.  Sony recommends a permanent 
label that states compliance and includes an address or phone 
number for the responsible party to contact in case of any 
interference or to obtain a copy of the test report.  On the 
other hand, M. A. Plante recommends that the logo not contain 
variable information that is unique to the product.  Xerox 
opposes maintaining the current warning statement on the 
label and instead believes that any warnings should be placed 
in the user manual.  Finally, Gateway, M. A. Plante and Tokin 
agree that it will still be necessary to include an 
informational statement in the user's manual regarding steps 
to be taken in the event of interference.

     28.  Decision.  As proposed, we are replacing the 
existing FCC ID label on personal computing equipment with a 
new, simplified label that includes a compliance logo.  We 
believe that the new label and FCC logo will increase public 
awareness of our technical standards and testing requirements 
for personal computers and will promote demand for properly 
approved devices.  Further, we are specifying separate labels 
for products that are assembled and tested by manufacturers 
and those that are assembled from modular components.  This 
will provide information for FCC enforcement purposes and 
will also inform consumers of the differences in the manner 
in these devices comply with the rules.  Consistent with our 
existing rules, we are also requiring that the new labels for 
computing devices uniquely identify the product with a trade 
name and type or model number.  This will ensure that 
equipment marketed under more than one brand name can be 
properly identified in a request for documentation verifying 
compliance.  

     29.  In choosing a logo and label format, we considered 
the following factors:  1) the logo should be easily 
recognizable; 2) the logo and label should convey information 
about its purpose; and 3) the label information and message 
should be simple and easily understandable.  Accordingly, we 
have designed the following two labels:               





     30.  We recognize the advantages of having a uniform 
labelling requirement and logo that could be accepted 
throughout North America or the world.  We intend to pursue 
the development of a common international compliance label 
for personal computing devices and encourage industry support 
of efforts in this regard.  When such a label and/or logo is 
developed, we will revisit our labeling requirements for 
personal computing equipment.  As a final matter, we are 
requiring that all warning statements regarding interference 
potential be placed in the user manual, rather than on the 
label as is currently required.  The user manual contains 
general operating instruction on the use of a device and we 
believe that placing the warning statements in the user 
manual would better server the consumer.  We are also 
maintaining our requirement that an informational statement 
be included in the user's manual regarding actions the user 
can take to resolve any interference that may occur from use 
of the device.

Accreditation of Test Laboratories 

     31.  In the Notice, we indicated that it was important 
under a self-authorization program to ensure that 
laboratories can adequately perform the compliance testing.  
Accordingly, as noted above, we proposed that laboratories 
testing personal computers and personal computer peripheral 
devices be accredited under the NIST's NVLAP program.  We 
observed that laboratory accreditation is generally required, 
either implicitly or explicitly, under most foreign product 
approval procedures.  We also requested comments on whether 
to permit alternative methods of accrediting laboratories, 
such as that offered by the American Association for 
Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA).  We further asked for 
comment on whether the laboratory accreditation requirement 
should apply to manufacturer's laboratories.  We proposed a 
transition period of two years to permit laboratories to 
obtain NVLAP accreditation.  Within that two-year period, 
laboratories that had not been accredited would be allowed to 
continue to obtain authorizations of personal computers and 
peripheral devices under the current certification procedure.

     32.  Several parties, such as CCL, ICC, M. A. Plante, 
Motorola and Norand, support the proposed requirement for 
NVLAP accreditation of laboratories that test personal 
computer equipment.  Motorola states that accreditation 
through NVLAP would offer a number of advantages for the U.S. 
industry and would support U.S. efforts for international 
harmonization of equipment approval.  CCL similarly observes 
that laboratory accreditation is being imposed in other parts 
of the world such as Australia, South Korea, Canada, Mexico 
and Europe.  In addition, a number of parties, including 
A2LA, C&C Laboratory, Cannon, Carl T. Jones, CES, CCITL, CKC, 
CompTIA, Diversified, EESI, Gateway, IBM, Intellistor and 
Bruce Reynolds support accreditation of testing laboratories, 
but request that alternatives to NVLAP accreditation be 
permitted.  These parties observe that NVLAP accreditation is 
costly and that currently there are only a limited number of 
NVLAP approved labs.  They recommend that private sector 
accreditation be permitted.  A2LA estimates that it could 
provide accreditation at about two-thirds the cost of NVLAP 
accreditation.  Carl T. Jones believes that some 
accreditation program may be necessary, but does not agree 
that NVLAP is the appropriate program.  EESI supports lab 
accreditation and recommends that the NIST National Voluntary 
Conformity Assessment System Evaluation (NVCASE) program be 
used to accredit a minimum of five competing Registrars for 
EMC test lab accreditation.  Intellistor also agrees that 
some method of laboratory accreditation is needed, but is 
concerned about the cost of NVLAP accreditation.  

     33.  Apple, Certitech, Dell, Elite, HP, ITI, ITAC and 
Retlif, support mandatory accreditation for independent labs, 
but not for manufacturers' labs.  Apple, Certitech, Dell, HP 
and ITI recommend that the current FCC site registration 
program be continued for manufacturers' labs.  Apple states 
that we should permit manufacturers' test facilities to 
choose between NVLAP approval or FCC site listing.  Apple 
also recommends that we model our site registration program 
on ISO 9000.  Certitech recommends that the FCC site 
registration program be improved to include periodic FCC 
inspections of labs and indicates that these inspections 
could be funded by a registration fee.  On the other hand, 
CCITL, CES, EESI, PCTEST and Timco believe that accreditation 
should apply equally to all testing labs, including 
manufacturers' labs.  For example, Timco states that 
accreditation can only be fairly implemented if it is applied 
to all test facilities.  

     34.  Other parties, including AT&T, Burle, Certitech, 
Compaq, Dell, EIA/CEG, GMC, HP, IBM, ITI, Mark Lapachak, 
MicroENERGY, NEC, Michael Nicolay, SGI, Sony, Spirit, Sun, 
TI, Unisys and Xerox, oppose any requirement for mandatory 
accreditation of testing labs.   These parties argue that the 
added cost and burden of accreditation are not warranted.  
For example, AT&T argues that currently approved personal 
computers are not causing harmful interference even though 
the testing is conducted by non-accredited labs.  Certitech 
states that NVLAP accreditation does nothing to support the 
goal of streamlining the certification and marketing of 
computers.  Compaq states that the current system works and 
that we should not adopt a lab accreditation program.  ITI 
believes that mandatory accreditation would not promote 
international harmonization and would be viewed as a trade 
barrier by off-shore manufacturers.  Unisys states that NVLAP 
accreditation does not appear to be justifiable in the 
context of deregulation.  Xerox believes that accreditation 
should only be used as a means to achieve international 
reciprocity.  It notes, however, that Japan currently accepts 
FCC site registration without requiring further testing.

     35.  AT&T, CES, Hong Kong, Intel and Tokin submitted 
comments regarding the accreditation of foreign labs.  AT&T 
and Intel state that mandatory accreditation could result in 
barriers for foreign manufacturers.  CES states that foreign 
labs should only be permitted to participate in accreditation 
if laboratories in the United States are granted authority to 
participate in equipment authorization in the European Union 
countries and others.  Hong Kong requests that we consider 
recognizing labs that have been accredited under the Hong 
Kong Laboratory Accreditation Scheme (HOKLAS) and adds that 
HOKLAS already has an agreement with A2LA.  Tokin recommends 
that we accept laboratory accreditations from foreign 
countries based on agreements between NIST and other 
countries. 

     36.  A2LA, Gateway, ICC and Motorola support the 
proposed two-year transition period, during which parties 
would have the option of obtaining certification or using the 
DoC process while labs are obtaining NVLAP accreditation.  
These parties state that a two-year period seems adequate.  
Other parties including Certitech, CCITL, EIA/CEG, and IBM 
recommend a four-year transition period, while Washington 
Laboratories recommends three years.  These parties argue 
that a longer time period is needed because of the large 
number of labs that will need accreditation.  CCITL 
recommends four years to allow accreditors other than NVLAP 
to form programs.  It states that accreditation should not be 
a requirement for a lab to perform DoC testing until the 
transition period is over.  Compaq argues that the 
requirement to use certification while waiting for NVLAP 
accreditation would provide an unfair advantage to 
laboratories that are already NVLAP accredited.

     37.  Decision.  We continue to believe some form of 
laboratory accreditation is important and necessary for 
ensuring the proper testing of digital devices for compliance 
with our rules.  Although our existing equipment 
certification procedure does not require that test 
laboratories be accredited, the procedure does give our staff 
the opportunity to review the report on compliance testing 
before a product can be marketed.  Under the new self-
authorization DoC procedure, we will be relying solely on the 
test labs to ensure that the testing is performed correctly.  
The requirement for accreditation of test laboratories will 
provide greater confidence that the testing laboratory has 
the capability to do proper testing and will provide a means 
for excluding laboratories that are not properly qualified.  
In addition, a requirement for accreditation will more 
closely align our computer authorization procedures with 
those of other countries.  As indicated by Motorola and 
others, accreditation may not always be explicitly required 
by other countries, but their procedures often effectively 
impose an accreditation requirement.  We therefore will 
require that laboratories testing personal computers and 
peripherals under our new DoC procedure be accredited by an 
appropriate recognized entity.

     38.  We continue to believe that accreditation under 
NIST's NVLAP program will ensure that personal computers are 
properly tested for compliance with our rules.  At the same 
time, we note that a number of the commenting parties 
expressed concern regarding the use of NVLAP as the exclusive 
means for accreditation and that alternative means of 
accreditation should also be permitted.  We agree that 
allowing additional parties to accredit test laboratories 
will reduce the cost and time needed to obtain accreditation 
and intend to permit laboratory accreditations by other 
parties.  For example, we are familiar with the A2LA's 
accreditation program and believe that it too would provide 
appropriate assurance of the competence of test laboratories 
that test personal computing equipment.  Accordingly, we will 
accept laboratory accreditation by the NIST NVLAP program, 
the A2LA accreditation program, and by other organizations 
approved by the FCC for purposes of testing personal computer 
equipment under our DoC procedure.  In order to ensure the 
integrity of the laboratory accreditation program, we are 
instructing our staff to periodically review the 
accreditation process and maintain close coordination with 
NIST, A2LA and any others that may be performing 
accreditations.  We are also delegating to the Chief of the 
Office of Engineering and Technology the authority to 
recognize additional accrediting organizations and to make 
determinations regarding the continued acceptability of 
individual accrediting organizations and accredited 
laboratories.

     39.  We are not persuaded that laboratories affiliated 
with manufacturers should be excluded from accreditation.  No 
persuasive evidence has been presented in the record of this 
proceeding to indicate that manufacturers' laboratories are 
more likely to perform compliance testing of personal 
computers in a manner that is more acceptable than 
independent laboratories.  We also agree with those 
commenters who argue that excluding manufacturers' test labs 
from required accreditation would place them at an unfair 
advantage over parties, such as small businesses, that must 
employ independent test laboratories where accreditation 
would be required.   Accordingly, we will require that any 
laboratory that tests digital devices for compliance under 
the DoC process must be accredited through an approved 
accreditation program.  

     40.  We believe that our laboratory accreditation 
requirement will support efforts towards international 
harmonization.  One of the barriers to foreign acceptance of 
United States product approvals has been the lack of a 
process for assuring the quality of laboratory testing in the 
U.S.  We believe our laboratory accreditation requirement 
will provide the assurance of testing quality needed by 
foreign administrations to accept U.S. test results.  This 
would benefit our manufacturing industry in international 
trade by eliminating the need for additional testing to 
market U.S. products in foreign countries.  In the interests 
of promoting fair competitive trade, we intend to work 
closely with administrations of other countries to develop 
mutual recognition agreements regarding acceptance of the 
accreditations of both U.S. and foreign laboratories.  At the 
same time, we agree with CES that it would be unfair to 
accept the accreditation of labs from foreign countries that 
either do not accept U.S. accreditations or that impose 
additional barriers upon U.S. companies.  Accordingly, for 
purposes of our DoC procedure, we will accept accreditation 
of foreign laboratories from countries with whom the United 
States has a mutual recognition agreement to accept the 
accreditation of U.S. laboratories.  Foreign manufacturers 
using non-accredited laboratories may continue to seek 
equipment approval for personal computing devices under our 
certification procedure.

     41.  We now believe that we should continue to allow 
certification of personal computing equipment on an 
indefinite basis.  This will allow manufacturers and 
importers of personal computing equipment to use either the 
new DoC procedure or the certification procedure for 
authorization of personal computing equipment, whichever best 
meets their individual needs and circumstances.  Consistent 
with this approach, we find that no special transition period 
is needed with regard to the implementation of the DoC 
procedure.  While we recognize that currently accredited 
laboratories may have some initial advantage in that they 
will be able to perform testing under the DoC procedure 
sooner than others, this advantage should be mitigated by our 
decision to permit additional parties to accredit 
laboratories.  Further, we find no compelling reason to 
penalize manufacturers and importers desiring to take 
advantage of our new self-authorization process by delaying 
the initiation of that procedure until all laboratories can 
obtain accreditation.

B.  Authorization of Modular Personal Computers

     42.  In the Notice, we proposed to require that all CPU 
boards, power supplies, and enclosures designed for use in 
personal computers and marketed separately to the public be 
authorized to demonstrate compliance with the technical 
standards contained in Part 15 of our rules.  We also 
proposed to allow any party to assemble and self-approve a 
personal computer using authorized components or to 
interchange these components in an existing personal computer 
system without the need to retest the resulting system, 
provided the assembly instructions provided with the 
components are followed.  We indicated that the assembler 
would be required to issue a new DoC indicating the basis on 
which compliance was ensured, e.g., only authorized 
components were used in the assembly or authorized components 
were installed in an authorized system.  We further proposed 
to require that the DoC identify each component used in the 
computer, include a statement that the computer complies with 
Part 15 of the FCC Rules, identify the compliance reports for 
each product used in the computer by date and number, and 
identify by name, address and telephone number the assembler 
responsible for ensuring that the resulting system complies 
with the standards.

     43.  In the Notice, we proposed to define a CPU board as 
a circuit board that contains a microprocessor, or frequency 
determining circuitry for the microprocessor, the primary 
function of which is to execute user-provided programming, 
but not including:  1) a circuit board that contains only a 
microprocessor intended to operate under the primary control 
or instruction of a microprocessor external to such a circuit 
board; or 2) a circuit board that is a dedicated controller 
for a storage or input/output device.  We proposed to require 
that the CPU board be tested twice to help ensure it would be 
likely to comply with our emissions requirements in different 
modular computer configurations.  In the first test, the CPU 
board would be tested without an enclosure and connected to a 
power supply with the oscillator circuit for the 
microprocessor operating with the output coupled to the 
microprocessor circuit, as would occur under normal 
operation.  No peripheral devices would be connected during 
this first test, and only radiated emissions would be 
measured.  Further, under this first test, we proposed to 
permit the radiated emissions to exceed the limits specified 
in our rules by a specified amount, e.g., 6 dB.  The second 
test of the CPU board would take place with the CPU board 
installed in a representative enclosure, with a 
representative power supply, and configured in the manner 
currently specified under our rules.  This second test would 
demonstrate compliance with the appropriate standards for 
both radiated and conducted emissions.  We requested 
alternative suggestions to this proposal along with comments 
as to how to deal with the fact that a CPU board may be 
capable of accepting microprocessors from multiple 
manufacturers.  

     44.  We proposed to permit power supplies to be 
authorized based on a single test with the power supply 
installed in a typical configuration.  We proposed that 
enclosures for personal computers, be shown to provide 6 dB 
of shielding effectiveness across the spectrum from 30 MHz to 
1000 MHz.  We added that the DoC for the enclosure would be 
required to specify the particular types of CPU boards for 
which it is authorized (e.g., for use with "486DX2" CPU 
boards).  We also proposed to require that any special steps 
necessary to ensure compliance be explained in the 
installation instructions.  Finally, we proposed to prohibit 
authorization of CPU boards or internal power supplies that 
require complex electrical changes to the host system, such 
as soldering parts or altering circuitry.

     45.  The responses to the proposals for self-
authorization of personal computers using modular components 
varied greatly.  A number of commenting parties, including 
Apple, CompTIA,  HP, ICC, ITAC, ITI, Intellistor, Mark 
Lapchak, Motorola, Bruce Reynolds, Spirit, Unisys, and Xerox 
support permitting the authorization of modular computers 
that are assembled from approved components.  HP states that 
modular component authorization approach will increase the 
likelihood that computers built by system integrators will 
comply with the Commission's technical standards.  ITAC 
states that permitting the self-authorization of modular 
computers will level the field between manufacturers who have 
been complying with current testing rules and system 
integrators who have not been performing compliance testing.  
ITI believes that imposing a DoC program for components will 
improve the likelihood of industry compliance, especially in 
cases where regulations have previously been ignored.  
CompTIA supports the proposal, but argues that the proposed 
requirement for the assembler to issue a new DoC would be 
burdensome.   ICC recommends that the assembler not be held 
responsible for system compliance if all the components used 
are DoC approved.  Intellistor believes that technical 
standards should be expanded to also include devices, such as 
hard drives, video boards and other components, to help 
ensure the assembly of a compliant system.  Unisys also 
recommends requiring testing of other components such as 
accelerator cards, microprocessor upgrades and 
interconnecting cables.  Xerox recommends that the rules on 
modular assemblies should encompass all modular components 
and devices to avoid confusion over whether products such as 
printers or other peripherals are covered under the new 
procedures.  It also recommends that manufacturers be 
required to provide specific instructions regarding the use 
of any special cabling or any restrictions on uses in the 
documentation included with the device.  

     46.  Apple believes that computers assembled from 
modular devices should be subject to tighter emissions limits 
than the present FCC Class B limits and some form of special 
labelling.  It suggests that we subject power supplies and 
CPU boards to emissions limits that are 6 dB below the 
current limits for personal computers and that we require 
that component devices be tested in a minimum configuration.

     47.  A number of other parties, including AFCCE, AST, 
AT&T, Capital Cities/ABC, Carl T. Jones, CCITL, Dell, 
Gateway, MicroENERGY, MSTV, Michael Nicolay, SGI, Sony and TI 
believe that the modular computer proposal presents a risk of 
increased interference, and are opposed to any changes that 
would eliminate testing of the final assembled system.  
AFCCE, for example, states that the proposal fails to 
recognize that the final configuration of a system is an 
important factor in determining compliance.  AST states that 
there is no guarantee that a system assembled from approved 
subassemblies or components will comply with the rules.  AST 
is further concerned that double testing of a single product 
may be required, i.e., both the component and the final 
assembled system, and that this would increase costs.  AT&T 
believes that assembly of new computers from authorized 
components should not be allowed until further data is 
available.  Capital Cities/ABC states that testing components 
is not an adequate substitute for testing finished products.  
Compaq believes that the modular approach will reduce rather 
than enhance compliance and make enforcement virtually 
impossible.  Dell also argues that authorization of modular 
computers would provide system assemblers and unfair 
competitive advantage over manufacturers.  SGI states that 
modular computer compliance by testing components is 
technically incorrect and unsound.  SGI recommends, at a 
minimum that any emission limit for components be set at 
minus 6 dB below the present Class B limits.

     48.  Gateway, Intellistor and ITAC comment on our 
proposed two-step testing of CPU boards.  Intellistor states 
that the proposed two-step testing plan for CPU boards has 
merit but recommends that the procedures for such testing be 
developed through a joint FCC and ANSI subcommittee.  Gateway 
and ITAC oppose the two-step testing plan.  Gateway states 
that it will be difficult to ensure that a board that is 
permitted to exceed the limit during the first test will 
later comply when installed in a system.  ITAC believes 
assemblies should be tested in a representative configuration 
under the current procedures.  

     49.  CCITL, Dell, Gateway, Intellistor, Motorola and 
Sony support some type of separate authorization plan for 
power supplies.  Dell, while opposing authorization of other 
components, states that modular approval does seem 
justifiable for power supplies.  Similarly, Gateway submits 
that the power supply primarily affects the ability of a 
computer to comply with the conducted limits and therefore 
can be authorized separately.  CCITL states that power 
supplies should be subjected to full and half resistive loads 
on power supplies to demonstrate compliance with the 
conducted emissions limits.  Intellistor suggests that power 
supplies be pre-scanned with a minimum and maximum load and 
then tested with a typical CPU to identify the broadband 
characteristics of the power supply.  Motorola also agrees 
with the proposal for separately authorizing power supplies.  
Sony recommends permitting power supplies to be tested with a 
non-inductive dummy load at the maximum rated output power as 
an alternative to testing in a typical configuration.  
However, AT&T argues that a power supply that is compliant 
when tested in one typical configuration may not comply in 
other configurations.  

     50.  Several parties, including Apple, AT&T, Gateway, 
Intellistor and MicroENERGY oppose the establishment of 
shielding standards for computer enclosures.  Apple believes 
that enclosures should not be authorized as stand-alone 
devices.  AT&T states that there is no practical way to 
determine the effectiveness of an enclosure in shielding 
emissions from within due to the existence of seams, slots 
and other factors.  Gateway states that the proposal to 
specify the types of CPU boards for an enclosure may not be a 
proper solution because certain boards can use different 
CPUs.  Gateway is concerned that a shielding requirement 
would necessitate that manufactures to carry inventories of 
different enclosures to match different combinations of 
motherboards and CPUs.  Intellistor recommends that testing 
enclosures be further studied.  MicroENERGY believes that it 
is risky to expect that a cabinet will provide the same 
amount of shielding for different motherboards.  On the other 
hand, CCITL recommends that computer chassis should be 
subject to shielding effectiveness.  Unisys expresses concern 
that demonstrating shielding effectiveness is very difficult.

     51.  Decision.  As observed in the Notice, an increasing 
number of personal computers are now being custom assembled 
from modular components, including CPU boards, power supplies 
and enclosures.  This modular component approach provides 
manufacturers and system integrators flexibility to produce a 
wide variety of equipment models to meet consumer needs.  
Under our current rules, each combination of CPU, power 
supply and enclosure must be separately tested for 
compliance.  We continue to believe that there is need for a 
simpler means of authorizing computers assembled from modular 
components.  At the same time, we also need to ensure that 
such a simpler approach does not permit such modular 
computers to pose a greater risk of interference.  We find 
that a self-authorization DoC approach that permits the 
assembly of computers from authorized modular components with 
a requirement for some additional testing would provide both 
flexibility for manufacturers and system integrators and 
adequate assurance that such modular computers will comply 
with our technical standards.  Based on the record in this 
proceeding, however, we are modifying our original proposal 
to tighten the emission limits for CPU boards tested without 
an enclosure to provide added assurance that modular 
computers will comply with our technical standards.  Due to 
the difficulties associated with determining the shielding 
effectiveness of enclosures, we are not adopting our proposal 
to separately authorize enclosures.  Accordingly, we are 
adopting the approach described below for authorizing modular 
computers.  This approach, which is similar to that proposed 
in the Notice, will allow any party to integrate personal 
computer systems using authorized components without the need 
to retest the resulting system.  Manufacturers will also 
continue to have the options of using the certification 
procedure or the new DoC procedure for personal computer 
equipment.  As part of this plan, we are requiring that any 
special steps needed to ensure compliance of a component must 
be explained in the installation instructions.  

     52.  Since the design of the CPU board is a critical 
factor in determining whether the completed computer system 
will comply with the standards, we believe it is essential 
that computers constructed from modular components employ CPU 
boards that are, themselves, designed to ensure compliance 
with our technical standards.  To ensure that such CPU boards 
will comply with these standards, we are requiring that CPU 
boards be authorized under either the DoC or certification 
procedures and be tested for compliance in the following 
manner.  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 Section 
15.31 of our rules.  Under these test conditions, the system 
under test shall not exceed the radiated emission limits 
specified in Section 15.109 by more than 3 dB.  If the 
initial test demonstrates that the system is within 3 dB of 
the limits, 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 Section 15.31 of our rules.  Under 
these test conditions, the system under test shall not exceed 
the radiated emission limits specified in Section 15.109 of 
our rules.  If, however, the initial test performed with the 
internal circuitry exposed demonstrates compliance with the 
radiated emission standards in Section 15.109, the second 
test is not required to be performed.  The test demonstrating 
compliance with the AC power line conducted limits specified 
in Section 15.107 of our rules shall be performed in 
accordance with the procedures specified in Section 15.31 
using an enclosure, peripherals, power supply and 
subassemblies that are typical of the type with which the CPU 
board under test would normally be employed.

     53.  The design of the power supply used in a personal 
computer is critical for ensuring compliance with the AC line 
conducted emissions limits.  The amount of load placed on the 
power supply can significantly alter its emission 
characteristics.  We therefore do not agree that power 
supplies should be tested as stand-alone products or with 
only resistive loads that may not be representative of normal 
loading.  Accordingly, we are adopting our original proposal 
to require that power supplies be tested in a representative 
personal computer system.  We believe that testing power 
supplies in a representative system will provide a more 
accurate depiction of emission levels, both conducted and 
radiated.  A power supply that has been tested in this manner 
and found to comply with the emissions limits may be 
authorized under either the DoC or certification procedures 
for use in modular computers.

     54.  We concur with the commenting parties regarding the 
difficulties associated with testing enclosures for shielding 
effectiveness.  In particular, we recognize that enclosures 
for personal computers can affect the emission 
characteristics of the components contained within the 
enclosure and that these effects may vary with different 
components and their placement within the enclosure.  We 
believe, however, that the standards and test procedures we 
are establishing for CPU boards and power supplies should be 
sufficient to eliminate the need to specify standards for 
enclosures.   Should we find compliance problems due to 
ineffective shielding, we may revisit standards for 
enclosures in a future proceeding.

     55.  In summary, as proposed in the Notice, we are 
permitting the assembly, without additional testing, of 
personal computer systems from separate authorized 
components.  The assembler must follow all of the 
installation instructions for the separate components in 
assembling the system.  The assembler of the system also must 
label the system as indicated above and include a separate 
DoC for the completed system.  The DoC must provide a list of 
all individual components used in assembling the system along 
with the name, address and telephone number of the company 
performing the assembly.  The assembler of the system will be 
the party responsible for ensuring that the system complies 
with the standards.  The assembler, upon notification that a 
specific system combination does not comply with the limits 
or is causing harmful interference problems, must immediately 
cease using that combination of components until the problem 
is corrected and take any additional remedial actions the 
Commission may deem necessary.  Finally, we will not permit 
the separate authorization of CPU boards or internal power 
supplies that require complex electrical changes to the host 
system, such as by soldering parts or altering circuitry.  
Such equipment may not be used in personal computers 
assembled from authorized modular component unless the 
resulting system is tested for compliance with the technical 
standards.  


                        PROCEDURAL MATTERS

     56.  Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  The Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, required by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. Section 608, is contained 
in Appendix A.


                         ORDERING CLAUSES

     57.  IT IS ORDERED that Part 15 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations ARE AMENDED as specified in Appendix C, 
effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, 
upon clearance from the Office of Management and Budget on 
the information collection requirements, or 60 days from 
submission of a report to Congress in compliance with the 
Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, whichever is 
the later date.  IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the proceeding in 
GEN Docket No. 90-413 IS TERMINATED.  The authority for 
issuance of this Report and Order is contained in Sections 
4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 
154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307.

     58.  For further information regarding this Report and 
Order contact Anthony Serafini, Office of Engineering and 
Technology, (202) 418-2456.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




                         William F. Caton
                         Acting Secretary


                            APPENDIX A

              FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 603, an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis was incorporated in the Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in ET 95-19.  Written comments on 
the proposals in the NPRM, including the Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, were requested.  The following Final 
Regulatory Analysis has been prepared:

Need and purpose of this action:  This action determines the 
standards, test procedures, and equipment authorization 
requirements that will be applied to personal computers in 
order:  1) to reduce regulatory burdens on computer 
manufacturers; 2) to remove impediments to flexible system 
design and construction techniques for computers; and, 3) to 
reduce the potential for interference to radio services by 
improving our ability to ensure that personal computers 
comply with our standards.

Summary of the issues raised by the public comments in 
response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:  No 
commenting parties raised issues specifically in response to 
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.  


Significant alternatives considered:  None.


                            APPENDIX B

                        COMMENTING PARTIES


Parties Filing Comments:

 1.  American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA)
 2.  The American Radio Relay League (ARRL)
 3.  Apple Computer, Inc. (Apple)
 4.  The Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV)
 5.  The Association of Federal Communications Consulting    
     Engineers (AFCCE)  
 6.  AST Computers (AST)
 7.  AT&T
 8.  Burle Industries, Inc. (Burle)
 9.  C&C Laboratories (C&C)
10.  Canon 
11.  Carl T. Jones
12.  Certitech Corporation (Certitech)
13.  CKC Laboratories, Inc. (CKC)
14.  Coalition of Concerned Independent Testing Laboratories
     (CCITL) 
15.  Communication Certification Laboratory (CCL) 
16.  Compaq Computer Corporation (Compaq)
17.  Compliance Engineering Services, Inc. (CES)
18.  Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) 
19.  Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronic Industries 
     Association (EIA/CEG)
20.  Dell Computer Corporation (Dell) 
21.  Diversified T.E.S.T. Technologies, Inc. (Diversified)
22.  Electromagnetic Engineering Services, Inc. (EESI) 
23.  Elite Electronic Engineering Company (Elite) 
24.  Gateway 2000, Inc. (Gateway)
25.  GMC Laboratories (GMC)
26.  Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) 
27.  Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office
28.  International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) 
29.  The Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
30.  The Information Technology Association of Canada (ITAC)
31.  Intel Corporation (Intel)
32.  Intellistor O.A.T.S. (Intellistor) 
33.  The International Compliance Corporation (ICC) 
34.  Larry Lambert
35.  Mark Lapchak and Associates 
36.  MicroENERGY, Inc. (MicroENERGY)
37.  Motorola
38.  NEC Technology (NEC)
39.  Michael Nicolay
40.  Norand Corporation (Norand)
41.  PCTEST Engineering Laboratory (PCTEST) 
42.  M. A. Plante
43.  Retlif Testing Laboratories (Retlif)
44.  Bruce Reynolds 
45.  Scientific-Atlanta (SA) 
46.  Silicon Graphics (SI)
47.  Richard Smith 
48.  Sony Electronics (Sony)
49.  Spirit Technologies (Spirit)
50.  Sun Microsystems Computer Company (Sun) 
51.  Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office
52.  Texas Instruments (TI)
53.  Timco Engineering
54.  Tokin
55.  The Unisys Corporation (Unisys) 
56.  U. S. Department of Commerce
57.  Washington Laboratories (WL) 

Parties Filing Reply Comments:

 1.  AT&T
 2.  Capital Cities/ABC 
 3.  EIA/CEG 
 4.  Gateway
 5.  HP
 6.  Howard Forman
 7.  ITI
 8.  Motorola
 9.  Richard Smith
10.  Spirit
11.  The Telecommunications Industry Association User  
     Premises Equipment Division (TIA)
12.  Vtech Computers, Inc. (Vtech)
13.  Xerox
                                                                  
APPENDIX C

A.  Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 0, is 
amended as follows:

     1.  The authority citation for Part 0 continues to read 
as follows:

     Authority:  Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 
U.S.C. 155.

     2.  Section 0.241 is amended by adding a new paragraph 
(f), to read as follows:

     Section 0.241  Authority delegated.

*              *              *              *              *

     (f)  The Chief of the Office of Engineering and 
Technology is authorized to enter into agreements with the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology and other 
accreditation bodies to perform accreditation of test 
laboratories pursuant to Section 2.948(d) of this chapter.  
In addition, the Chief is authorized to make determinations 
regarding the continued acceptability of individual 
accrediting organizations and accredited laboratories.


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

     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.


     2.  Section 2.805 is revised to read as follows:

Section 2.805  Equipment that does not require Commission 
approval.

     In the case of a radio frequency device that, in 
accordance with the rules in this chapter, does not have to 
have a grant of equipment authorization issued by the 
Commission, e.g., a device subject to verification or a 
Declaration of Conformity, but, nevertheless, must comply 
with specified technical standards prior to use, no person 
shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including 
advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship or distribute 
for the purposes of selling or leasing or offering for sale 
or lease, any such radio frequency device unless, prior 
thereto, such device complies with the applicable 
administrative and technical provisions (including 
verification or Declaration of Conformity of the equipment, 
where required) specified in the Commission's rules.


     3.  Section 2.901 is revised to read as follows:

Section 2.901  Basis and purpose.

     (a)  In order to carry out its responsibilities under 
the Communications Act and the various treaties and 
international regulations, and in order to promote efficient 
use of the radio spectrum, the Commission has developed 
technical standards for radio frequency equipment and parts 
or components thereof.  The technical standards applicable to 
individual types of equipment are found in that part of the 
rules governing the service wherein the equipment is to be 
operated.  In addition to the technical standards provided, 
the rules governing the service may require that such 
equipment be verified by the manufacturer or importer, be 
authorized under a Declaration of Conformity, or receive an 
equipment authorization from the Commission by one of the 
following procedures:  type approval, type acceptance, 
certification, registration or notification.

     (b)  The following sections describe the verification 
procedure, the procedure for a Declaration of Conformity, and 
the procedures to be followed in obtaining type approval, 
type acceptance, certification or notification from the 
Commission and the conditions attendant to such a grant.


     4.  A new Section 2.906 is added to read as follows:

Section 2.906  Declaration of Conformity.

     (a)  A Declaration of Conformity is a procedure where 
the responsible party, as defined in Section 2.909, makes 
measurements or takes other necessary steps to ensure that 
the equipment complies with the appropriate technical 
standards.  Submittal of a sample unit or representative data 
to the Commission demonstrating compliance is not required 
unless specifically requested pursuant to Section 2.1076 of 
this part.

     (b)  The Declaration of Conformity attaches to all items 
subsequently marketed by the responsible party which are 
identical, as defined in Section 2.908 of this part, to the 
sample tested and found acceptable by the responsible party.


     5.  Section 2.909 is amended by revising the 
introductory sentence and by adding a new paragraph (c), to 
read as follows:

Section 2.909  Responsible party.

     The following parties are responsible for the compliance 
of radio frequency equipment with the applicable standards:

*              *              *              *              *

     (c)  In the case of equipment subject to authorization 
under the Declaration of Conformity procedure:

          (1)  The manufacturer or, if the equipment is 
assembled from individual component parts and the resulting 
system is subject to authorization under a Declaration of 
Conformity, the assembler.

          (2)  If the equipment, by itself, is subject to a 
Declaration of Conformity and that equipment is imported, the 
importer.


     6.  Section 2.913 is revised to read as follows:

Section 2.913  Submittal of equipment authorization 
application or information to the Commission.

     (a)  Unless otherwise directed, applications with fees 
attached for the equipment authorization, pursuant to Section 
1.1103 of this chapter, must be submitted to the Federal 
Communications Commission, Equipment Approval Services, P. O. 
Box 358315, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5315.  If the applicant 
chooses to make use of an air courier/package delivery 
service, the following address must appear on the outside of 
the package/envelope: Federal Communications Commission, c/o 
Mellon Bank, Three Mellon Bank Center, 525 William Penn Way, 
27th floor, Room 153-2713, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania  15259-
0001, attention: Wholesale Lockbox Supervisor.

     (b) Any information or equipment samples requested by 
the Commission pursuant to the provisions of Subpart J of 
this part shall, unless otherwise directed, be submitted to 
the FCC, Equipment Authorization Division, 7434 Oakland Mills 
Road, Columbia, Maryland  21046.


     7.  The heading between Sections 2.926 and 2.927 is 
revised to read "Conditions Attendant to an Equipment 
Authorization."


     8.  Section 2.937 is revised to read as follows:

Section 2.937  Equipment defect and/or design change.

     When a complaint is filed with the Commission concerning 
the failure of equipment subject to this chapter to comply 
with pertinent requirements of the Commission's rules, and 
the Commission determines that the complaint is justified and 
arises out of an equipment fault attributable to the 
responsible party, the Commission may require the responsible 
party to investigate such complaint and report the results of 
such investigation to the Commission.  The report shall also 
indicate what action if any has been taken or is proposed to 
be taken by the responsible party to correct the defect, both 
in terms of future production and with reference to articles 
in the possession of users, sellers and distributors.


     9.  Section 2.945 is revised to read as follows:

Section 2.945  Sampling tests of equipment compliance.

     The Commission will, from time to time, request the 
responsible party to submit equipment subject to this chapter 
to determine the extent to which subsequent production of 
such equipment continues to comply with the data filed by the 
applicant (or on file with the responsible party for 
equipment subject to notification or a Declaration of 
Conformity).  Shipping costs to the Commission's laboratory 
and return shall be borne by the responsible party.


     10.  Section 2.946 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) 
and (b), to read as follows:

Section 2.946  Penalty for failure to provide test samples 
and data.

     (a)  Any responsible party, as defined in Section 2.909 
of this chapter, or any party who markets equipment subject 
to the provisions of this chapter, shall provide test 
sample(s) or data upon request by the Commission.  Failure to 
comply with such a request with the time frames shown below 
may be cause for forfeiture, pursuant to Section 1.80 of Part 
1 of this chapter, or other administrative sanctions such as 
suspending action on any applications for equipment 
authorization submitted by such party while the matter is 
being resolved.

          (1)  When the equipment is subject to authorization 
under a Declaration of Conformity, data shall be provided 
within 14 days of delivery of the request and test sample(s) 
shall be provided within 60 days of delivery of the request.

          (2)  For all other devices, test sample(s) or data 
shall be provided within 60 days of the request.

     (b)  In the case of equipment involving harmful 
interference or safety of life or property, the Commission 
may specify that test samples subject to the provisions of 
this section be submitted within less than 60 days, but not 
less than 14 days.  Failure to comply within the specified 
time period will be subject to the sanctions specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section.

*              *              *              *              *


     11.  Section 2.948 is amended by adding new paragraphs 
(a)(3) and (d), to read as follows:

Section 2.948  Description of measurement facilities.

     (a)  *     *     *

*              *              *              *              *

          (3)  If the equipment is to be authorized under a 
Declaration of Conformity, the description of the measurement 
facilities shall be retained by the party performing the 
measurements.

*              *              *              *              *

     (d)  If the equipment is to be authorized under a 
Declaration of Conformity, the party performing the 
measurements shall be accredited for performing such 
measurements by an authorized accreditation body based on the 
International Organization for Standardization/International 
Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) Guide 25, "General 
Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing 
Laboratories."  Accreditation bodies must be approved by the 
FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, as indicated in 
Section 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 required to be filed or retained by 
the testing party shall comply with the requirements 
established by the accrediting organization.  NOTE:  Parties 
that are located outside of the United States or its 
possessions will be accredited only if there is a mutual 
recognition agreement between that country and the United 
States that permits similar accreditation of U.S. facilities 
to perform testing for products marketed in that country.


     12.  A new heading "DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY" is placed 
after Section 2.1065.


     13.  A new Section 2.1071 is added after the heading 
"DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY", to read as follows:

Section 2.1071  Cross reference.

     The general provisions of this subpart, Section 2.901, 
et seq., shall apply to equipment subject to a Declaration of 
Conformity.


     14.  A new Section 2.1072 is added to read as follows:

Section 2.1072  Limitation on Declaration of Conformity.

     (a)  The Declaration of Conformity signifies that the 
responsible party, as defined in Section 2.909 of this part, 
has determined that the equipment has been shown to comply 
with the applicable technical standards if no unauthorized 
change is made in the equipment and if the equipment is 
properly maintained and operated.  Compliance with these 
standards shall not be construed to be a finding by the 
responsible party with respect to matters not encompassed by 
the Commission's rules.

     (b)  A Declaration of Conformity by the responsible 
party is effective until a termination date is otherwise 
established by the Commission.

     (c)  No person shall, in any advertising matter, 
brochure, etc., use or make reference to a Declaration of 
Conformity in a deceptive or misleading manner or convey the 
impression that such a Declaration of Conformity reflects 
more than a determination by the responsible party that the 
device or product has been shown to be capable of complying 
with the applicable technical standards of the Commission's 
rules.


     15.  A new Section 2.1073 is added to read as follows:

Section 2.1073  Responsibilities.

     (a)  The responsible party, as defined in Section 2.909 
of this part, must warrant that each unit of equipment 
marketed under a Declaration of Conformity is identical to 
the unit tested and found acceptable with the standards and 
that the records maintained by the responsible party continue 
to reflect the equipment being produced under the Declaration 
of Conformity within the variation that can be expected due 
to quantity production and testing on a statistical basis.

     (b)  The responsible party, if different from the 
manufacturer, may upon receiving a written statement from the 
manufacturer that the equipment complies with the appropriate 
technical standards rely on the manufacturer or independent 
testing agency to determine compliance.  However, the test 
records required by Section 2.1075 of this part shall be in 
the English language and shall be made available to the 
Commission upon a reasonable request in accordance with the 
provisions of Section 2.1076 of this part.

     (c)  In the case of transfer of control of the 
equipment, as in the case of sale or merger of the 
responsible party, the new responsible party shall bear the 
responsibility of continued compliance of the equipment.

     (d)  Equipment shall be retested to demonstrate 
continued compliance with the applicable technical standards 
if any modifications or changes that could adversely affect 
the emanation characteristics of the equipment are made by 
the responsible party.  The responsible party bears 
responsibility for the continued compliance of subsequently 
produced equipment.

     (e)  If any modifications or changes are made by anyone 
other than the responsible party for the Declaration of 
Conformity, the party making the modifications or changes, if 
located within the U.S., becomes the new responsible party.  
The new responsible party must comply with all provisions for 
the Declaration of Conformity, including having test data on 
file demonstrating that the product continues to comply with 
all of the applicable technical standards.


     16.  A new Section 2.1074 is added to read as follows:

Section 2.1074  Identification.

     Devices subject only to a Declaration of Conformity 
shall be uniquely identified by the responsible party.  This 
identification shall not be of a format which could be 
confused with the FCC Identifier required on certified, 
notified, type accepted or type approved equipment.  The 
responsible party shall maintain adequate identification 
records to facilitate positive identification for each 
device.


     17.  A new Section 2.1075 is added to read as follows:

Section 2.1075  Retention of records.

     (a)  Except as shown in paragraph (b) of this section, 
for each product subject to a Declaration of Conformity, the 
responsible party, as shown in Section 2.909 of this part, 
shall maintain the records listed below:

          (1)  A record of the original design drawings and 
specifications and all changes that have been made that may 
affect compliance with the requirements of Section 2.1073 of 
this part.

          (2)  A record of the procedures used for production 
inspection and testing (if tests were performed) to insure 
the conformance required by Section 2.1073 of this part.  
(Statistical production line emission testing is not 
required.)

          (3)  A record of the measurements made on an 
appropriate test site that demonstrates compliance with the 
applicable regulations.   The record shall contain:

               (i)  The actual date or dates testing was 
performed.

               (ii)  The name of the test laboratory, 
company, or individual performing the testing.  The 
Commission may request additional information regarding the 
test site, the test equipment or the qualifications of the 
company or individual performing the tests.

               (iii)  A description of how the device was 
actually tested, identifying the measurement procedure and 
test equipment that was used.

               (iv)  A description of the equipment under 
test (EUT) and support equipment connected to, or installed 
within, the EUT.

               (v)  The identification of the EUT and support 
equipment by trade name and model number and, if appropriate, 
by FCC Identifier and serial number.

               (vi)  The types and lengths of connecting 
cables used and how they were arranged or moved during 
testing.

               (vii)  At least two photographs showing the 
test set-up for the highest line conducted emission and 
showing the test set-up for the highest radiated emission.  
These photographs must be focused originals which show enough 
detail to confirm other information contained in the test 
report.

               (viii)  A description of any modifications 
made to the EUT by the testing company or individual to 
achieve compliance with the regulations.

               (ix)  All of the data required to show 
compliance with the appropriate regulations.

               (x)  The signature of the individual 
responsible for testing the product along with the name and 
signature of an official of the responsible party, as 
designated in Section 2.909 of this part.

               (xi)  A copy of the compliance information, as 
described in Section 2.1077 of this chapter, required to be 
provided with the equipment.

     (b)  If the equipment is assembled using modular 
components that, by themselves, are subject to authorization 
under a Declaration of Conformity and/or a grant of 
certification, and the assembled product is also subject to 
authorization under a Declaration of Conformity but, in 
accordance with the applicable regulations, does not require 
additional testing, the assembler shall maintain the records 
listed below in order to show the basis on which compliance 
with the standards was determined:

          (1)  A listing of all of the components used in the 
assembly.

          (2)  Copies of the compliance information, as 
described in Section 2.1077 of this chapter, for all of the 
modular components used in the assembly.

          (3)  A listing of the FCC Identifier numbers for 
all of the components used in the assembly that are 
authorized under a grant of certification.

          (4)  A listing of equipment modifications, if any, 
that were made during assembly.

          (5)  A copy of any instructions included with the 
components that were required to be followed to ensure the 
assembly of a compliant product, along with a statement, 
signed by the assembler, that these instructions were 
followed during assembly.  This statement shall also contain 
the name and signature of an official of the responsible 
party, as designated in Section 2.909 of this part.

     (c)  The records listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section shall be retained for two years after the 
manufacture or assembly, as appropriate, of said equipment 
has been permanently discontinued, or until the conclusion of 
an investigation or a proceeding if the responsible party is 
officially notified that an investigation or any other 
administrative proceeding involving the equipment has been 
instituted.  Requests for the records described in this 
section and for sample units also are covered under the 
provisions of Section 2.946 of this part.


     18.  A new Section 2.1076 is added to read as follows:

Section 2.1076  FCC inspection and submission of equipment 
for testing.

     (a)  Each responsible party, upon receipt of a 
reasonable request, shall submit to the Commission the 
records required by Section 2.1075 of this part or one or 
more sample units for measurements at the Commission's 
laboratory.

     (b)  Shipping costs to the Commission's Laboratory and 
return shall be borne by the responsible party.  In the event 
the responsible party believes that shipment of the sample to 
the Commission's Laboratory is impractical because of the 
size or weight of the equipment, or the power requirement, or 
for any other reason, the responsible party may submit a 
written explanation why such shipment is impractical and 
should not be required.


     19.  A new Section 2.1077 is added to read as follows:

Section 2.1077  Compliance information.

     (a)  If a product must be tested and authorized under a 
Declaration of Conformity, a compliance information statement 
shall be supplied with the product at the time of marketing 
or importation, containing the following information:

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

          (2)  A statement, similar to that contained in 
Section 15.19(a)(3) of this chapter, that the product 
complies with Part 15 of the regulations.

          (3)  The identification, by name, address and 
telephone number, of the responsible party, as defined in 
Section 2.909 of this chapter.  The responsible party for a 
Declaration of Conformity must be located within the United 
States.

     (b)  If a product is assembled from modular components 
that, by themselves, are authorized under a Declaration of 
Conformity and/or a grant of certification, and the assembled 
product is also subject to authorization under a Declaration 
of Conformity but, in accordance with the applicable 
regulations, does not require additional testing, the product 
shall be supplied, at the time of marketing or importation, 
with a compliance information statement containing the 
following information:

          (1)  Identification of the modular components used 
in the assembly.  A modular component authorized under a 
Declaration of Conformity shall be identified as specified in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.  A modular component 
authorized under a grant of certification shall be identified 
by name and model number (if applicable) along with the FCC 
Identifier number.

          (2)  A statement that the product complies with 
Part 15 of the regulations.

          (3)  The identification, by name, address and 
telephone number, of the responsible party who assembled the 
product from modular components, as defined in Section 2.909 
of this chapter.  The responsible party for a Declaration of 
Conformity must be located within the United States.

          (4)    Copies of the compliance information 
statements for each modular component used in the system that 
is authorized under a Declaration of Conformity.

     (c)  The compliance information statement shall be 
included in the user's manual or as a separate sheet.


C.  Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 15, is 
amended as follows:

     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.


     2.  Section 15.3 is amended by revising paragraph (r) 
and adding a new paragraph (bb), to read as follows:

Section 15.3  Definitions.

*              *              *              *              *

     (r)  Peripheral device.  An input/output unit of a 
system that feeds data into and/or receives data from the 
central processing unit of a digital device.  Peripherals to 
a digital device include any device that is connected 
external to the digital device, any device internal to the 
digital device that connects the digital device to an 
external device by wire or cable, and any circuit board 
designed for interchangeable mounting, internally or 
externally, that increases the operating or processing speed 
of a digital device, e.g., "turbo" cards and "enhancement" 
boards.  Examples of peripheral devices include terminals, 
printers, external floppy disk drives and other data storage 
devices, video monitors, keyboards, interface boards, 
external memory expansion cards, and other input/output 
devices that may or may not contain digital circuitry.  This 
definition does not include CPU boards, as defined in 
paragraph (bb) of this section, even though a CPU board may 
connect to an external keyboard or other components.

*              *              *              *              *

     (bb)  CPU board.  A circuit board that contains a 
microprocessor, or frequency determining circuitry for the 
microprocessor, the primary function of which is to execute 
user-provided programming, but not including:  (1) a circuit 
board that contains only a microprocessor intended to operate 
under the primary control or instruction of a microprocessor 
external to such a circuit board; or, (2) a circuit board 
that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output 
device.


     3.  Section 15.19 is amended by redesignating paragraph 
(b) as paragraph (a)(4), by redesignating paragraph (c) as 
paragraph (a)(5), by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5), 
and by adding new paragraphs (b) and (c), to read as follows:

Section 15.19  Labelling requirements.

(a)  *     *     *

*              *              *              *              *

          (4)  Where a device is constructed in two or more 
sections connected by wires and marketed together, the 
statement specified under paragraph (a) of this section is 
required to be affixed only to the main control unit.

          (5)  When the device is so small or for such use 
that it is not practicable to place the statement specified 
under paragraph (a) of this section on it, the information 
required by this paragraph shall be placed in a prominent 
location in the instruction manual or pamphlet supplied to 
the user or, alternatively, shall be placed on the container 
in which the device is marketed.  However, the FCC identifier 
or the unique identifier, as appropriate, must be displayed 
on the device.

     (b)  Products subject to authorization under a 
Declaration of Conformity shall be labelled as follows:        

          (1)  The label shall be located in a conspicuous 
location on the device and shall contain the unique 
identification described in Section 2.1074 of this chapter 
and the following logo: 
               (i)  If the product is authorized based on 
testing of the product or system:
               (ii)  If the product is authorized based on 
assembly using separately authorized components and the 
resulting product is not separately tested: 

          (2)  When the device is so small or for such use 
that it is not practicable to place the statement specified 
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section on it, such as for a 
CPU board or a plug-in circuit board peripheral device, the 
text associated with the logo may be placed in a prominent 
location in the instruction manual or pamphlet supplied to 
the user.  However, the unique identification (trade name and 
model number) and the logo must be displayed on the device.

          (3)  The label shall not be a stick-on, paper 
label.  The label on these products shall be permanently 
affixed to the product and shall be readily visible to the 
purchaser at the time of purchase, as described in Section 
2.925(d) of this chapter.  "Permanently affixed" means that 
the label is etched, engraved, stamped, silkscreened, 
indelibly printed, or otherwise permanently marked on a 
permanently attached part of the equipment or on a nameplate 
of metal, plastic, or other material fastened to the 
equipment by welding, riveting, or a permanent adhesive.  The 
label must be designed to last the expected lifetime of the 
equipment in the environment in which the equipment may be 
operated and must not be readily detachable.

     (c)  [reserved]

*              *              *              *              *

4.  A new Section 15.32 is added, to read as follows:

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

Power supplies and CPU boards used with personal computers 
and for which separate authorizations are required to be 
obtained shall be tested as follows:  

     (a)  CPU boards shall be tested as follows:

          (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 Section 15.31 of this part.  Under these test 
conditions, the system under test shall not exceed the 
radiated emission limits specified in Section 15.109 of this 
part by more than 3 dB.

          (2)  Unless the test in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section demonstrates compliance with the limits in Section 
15.109 of this part, 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 Section 15.31 of this part.  
Under these test conditions, the system under test shall not 
exceed the radiated emission limits specified in Section 
15.109 of this part.

         (3)  The test demonstrating compliance with the AC 
power line conducted limits specified in Section 15.107 of 
this part shall be performed in accordance with the 
procedures specified in Section 15.31 using a enclosure, 
peripherals, power supply and subassemblies that are typical 
of the type with which the CPU board under test would 
normally be employed.

     (b)  The power supply shall be tested installed in an 
enclosure that is typical of the type within which it would 
normally be installed.  Additional components, including 
peripheral devices, a CPU board, and subassemblies, shall be 
added, as needed, to result in a complete personal computer 
system.  Testing shall be in accordance with the procedures 
specified in Section 15.31 and must demonstrate compliance 
with all of the standards contained in this part.


     5.  Section 15.37 is amended by adding a new paragraph 
(g), to read as follows:

Section 15.37  Transition provisions for compliance with the 
rules.

*              *              *              *              *

     (g)  For CPU boards and power supplies designed to be 
used with personal computers:  The manufacture and 
importation of these products shall cease on or before 
[insert date 12 months after date of publication in the 
Federal Register] unless these products have been authorized 
under a Declaration of Conformity or a grant of 
certification, demonstrating compliance with all of the 
provisions in this Part.  Limited provisions, as detailed in 
Section 15.101(d) of this Chapter, are provided to permit the 
importation and manufacture of these products subsequent to 
this date where the CPU boards and/or power supplies are 
marketed only to personal computer equipment manufacturers.


     6.  Section 15.101 is amended by revising the table in 
paragraph (a) and the text of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and 
(f), to read as follows:

Section 15.101  Equipment authorization of unintentional 
radiators.

     (a)  *     *     *

Type of Device
,Equipment Authorization 
Required

TV broadcast receiver..............................
FM broadcast receiver.............................
CB receiver..............................................
Superregenerative receiver.......................
Scanning receiver.....................................
All other receivers subject to Part 15.....
TV interface device..................................
Cable system terminal device..................
Stand-alone cable input selector switch..
Class B personal computers and
   peripherals............................................
CPU boards and power supplies used
  with Class B personal computers.........
Class B personal computers assembled
  using authorized CPU boards or
  power supplies.......................................
Class B external switching power 
  supplies not used with personal
  computers...............................................
Other Class B digital devices &
  peripherals..............................................
Class A digital devices, peripherals &
  external switching power supplies........
All other devices......................................

,Verification
Verification
Certification
Certification
Certification
Notification
Certification
Notification
Verification
Declaration of Conformity
    or Certification
Declaration of Conformity
   or Certification
Declaration of Conformity
Verification
Verification
Verification
Verification



     (b)  *     *     *

     (c)  Personal computers shall be authorized in 
accordance with one of the following methods:  

          (1)  The specific combination of CPU board, power 
supply and enclosure is tested together and authorized under 
a Declaration of Conformity or a grant of certification; 

          (2)  The personal computer is authorized under a 
Declaration of Conformity or a grant of certification, and 
the CPU board or power supply in that computer is replaced 
with a CPU board or power supply that has been separately 
authorized under a Declaration of Conformity or a grant of 
certification; or, 

          (3)  The CPU board and power supply used in the 
assembly of a personal computer have been separately 
authorized under a Declaration of Conformity or a grant of 
certification.  

          (4)  Personal computers assembled using either of 
the methods specified in paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this 
section must, by themselves, also be authorized under a 
Declaration of Conformity if they are marketed.   However,  
additional testing is not required for this Declaration of 
Conformity, provided the procedures in Section 15.102(b) of 
this chapter are followed.

     (d)  Peripheral devices, as defined in Section 15.3(r), 
shall be authorized under a Declaration of Conformity, or a 
grant of certification, or verified, as appropriate, prior to 
marketing.  Regardless of the provisions of paragraphs (a) or 
(c) of this section, if a CPU board, power supply, or 
peripheral device will always be marketed with a specific 
personal computer, it is not necessary to obtain a separate 
authorization for that product provided the specific 
combination of personal computer, peripheral device, CPU 
board and power supply has been authorized under a 
Declaration of Conformity or a grant of certification as a 
personal computer.

          (1)  No authorization is required for a peripheral 
device or a subassembly that is sold to an equipment 
manufacturer for further fabrication; that manufacturer is 
responsible for obtaining the necessary authorization prior 
to further marketing to a vendor or to a user.  

          (2)  Power supplies and CPU boards that have not 
been separately authorized and are designed for use with 
personal computers may be imported and marketed only to a 
personal computer equipment manufacturer that has indicated, 
in writing, to the seller or importer that they will obtain a 
Declaration of Conformity or a grant of certification for the 
personal computer employing these components.

     (e)  Subassemblies to digital devices are not subject to 
the technical standards in this part unless they are marketed 
as part of a system in which case the resulting system must 
comply with the applicable regulations.  Subassemblies 
include:  

          (1)  Devices that are enclosed solely within the 
enclosure housing the digital device, except for:  power 
supplies used in personal computers; devices included under 
the definition of a peripheral device in Section 15.3(r); and 
personal computer CPU boards, as defined in Section 15.3(bb);  

          (2)  CPU boards, as defined in Section 15.3(bb), 
other than those used in personal computers, that are 
marketed without an enclosure or power supply; and, 

          (3)  Switching power supplies that are separately 
marketed and are solely for use internal to a device other 
than a personal computer.  
          
     (f)  The procedures for obtaining a grant of 
certification or notification and for verification and a 
Declaration of Conformity are contained in Subpart J of Part 
2 of this chapter.


     7.  A new Section 15.102 is added to read as follows:

Section 15.102  CPU boards and power supplies used in 
personal computers.

     (a)  Authorized CPU boards and power supplies that are 
sold as separate components shall be supplied with complete 
installation instructions.  These instructions shall specify 
all of the installation procedures that must be followed to 
ensure compliance with the standards, including, if 
necessary, the type of enclosure, e.g., a metal enclosure, 
proper grounding techniques, the use of shielded cables, the 
addition of any needed components, and any necessary 
modifications to additional components.

          (1)  Any additional parts needed to ensure 
compliance with the standards, except for the enclosure, are 
considered to be special accessories and, in accordance with 
Section 15.27 of this part, must be marketed with the CPU 
board or power supply.  

          (2)  Any modifications that must be made to a 
personal computer, peripheral device, CPU board or power 
supply during installation of a CPU board or power supply 
must be simple enough that they can be performed by the 
average consumer.  Parts requiring soldering, disassembly of 
circuitry or other similar modifications are not permitted.

     (b)  Assemblers of personal computer systems employing 
modular CPU boards and/or power supplies are not required to 
test the resulting system provided the following conditions 
are met:

          (1)  Each device used in the system has been 
authorized as required under this part (Note:  according to 
Section 15.101(e), some subassemblies used in a personal 
computer system may not require an authorization);

          (2)  The original label and identification on each 
piece of equipment remain unchanged; 

          (3)  Each responsible party's instructions to 
ensure compliance (including, if necessary, the use of 
shielded cables or other accessories or modifications) are 
followed when the system is assembled; and, 

          (4)  If the system is marketed, the resulting 
equipment combination is authorized under a Declaration of 
Conformity pursuant to Section 15.101(c)(4) of this part and 
a compliance information statement, as described in Section 
2.1077(b) of this chapter, is supplied with the system.  
Marketed systems shall also comply with the labelling 
requirements in Section 15.19 of this part and must be 
supplied with the information required under Sections 15.21, 
15.27 and 15.105 of this part.

          (5)  The assembler of a personal computer system 
may be required to test the system and/or make necessary 
modifications if a system is found to cause harmful 
interference or to be noncompliant with the appropriate 
standards in the configuration in which it is marketed (see 
Sections 2.909, 15.1, 15.27(d) and 15.101(e) of this 
Chapter).