FCC 90-307 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No. 20 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 GEN Docket No. 90-413 In the Matter of Provisions for Introducing Modular Personal Computers and for Facilitating Upgrades of Digital Devices NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: September 4, 1990; Released: September 24, 1990 By the Commission: INTRODUCTION 1. By this action, the Commission proposes to amend Part 15 of its rules to permit the authorization of CPU (central processing unit) boards designed to be employed in personal computers and digital devices. The proposed rule change will allow manufacturers and system integra­ tors to vary the CPU boards used in personal computers without obtaining an FCC authorization for each com­ bination of computer and CPU board marketed. This proposal responds to the petitions filed by the Interna­ tional Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") and the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Associ­ ation ("CBEMA"). 1 BACKGROUND 2. Part 15 of the Commission's rules governs the opera­ tion and regulation of radio frequency devices without an individual license. Digital devices, including computers and peripheral devices, generate and use radio frequency energy.2 These devices are subject to the standards and other provisions in Part 15 for unintentional radiators. 3 3. Under the Part 15 rules, all Class B personal com­ puters and their associated peripheral devices are required to be authorized under the FCC certification procedure.4 Peripheral devices include monitors, keyboards, printers, and some internal cards such as accelerator boards that increase a computer's operating speed. This requirement is intended to ensure that personal computers comply with all of the applicable FCC technical standards for such devices. Personal computers and their associated pe­ ripherals may not be marketed unless they receive FCC authorization. 4. The Commission does not authorize the individual components, or subassemblies, that are used in personal computers. This is because subassemblies generally are used in the fabrication of a finished product and are not consumer devices. However, changes are developing in the way personal computers are designed and manufac­ tured. In particular, it appears that there is a trend toward 5652 interchangeable CPU boards. In their pet1t10ns for re­ consideration, IBM and CBEMA request rule changes to address the use of interchangeable CPU boards. 5. The IBM Petition. IBM states that technological devel­ opments in the design and manufacture of computers have begun to change the way consumers acquire and upgrade computers. Specifically, IBM states that the CPU boards used in computers are now available directly to consumers as separately marketed, interchangeable plug­ in boards.5 IBM is concerned that the rules unintention­ ally permit such CPU boards to be marketed to consumers for combination with separately-purchased base units without requiring either the CPU board or base unit to meet our standards for a combined product.6 6. IBM requests that the Commission require CPU boards to comply with the Part 15 digital device standards and subject them to the certification or verification re­ quirements. It suggests that the Commission exempt from these requirements only CPU boards marketed to another manufacturer for inclusion in a product that will, itself, be subject to the equipment authorization requirements. However, CPU boards sold to another manufacturer for inclusion in a final product would be required to be authorized before the final devices could be marketed to a user or a vendor. IBM also suggests that the rules specify the equipment within which the CPU board is to be tested for certification or verification. IBM states that the Commission could define CPU boards to be peripheral devices, permitting them to be tested installed in only one base unit_? IBM notes, however, that a single test may not be completely adequate since the emissions profile de­ pends on a complex interaction between the CPU board and the base unit. IBM adds that a more rigorous dem­ onstration of compliance could be obtained by requiring the CPU board to be tested in every base unit for which the manufacturer's marketing materials claim compatibil­ ity. However, IBM recognizes that this would be an oner­ ous requirement for a manufacturer that produces CPU boards meant to be compatible with a number of different base units. Thus, it urges the Commission to adopt a balanced approach that minimizes the potential for harm­ ful interference while avoiding excessive burdens on the manufacturer. IBM proposes no specific approach to test­ ing. 7. Comments supporting the IBM petition were filed by the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters ("MST") and Dell Computer Corporation ("Dell"). MST prefers that manufacturers be required to certify or verify each CPU board in combination with every base unit with which the manufacturer claims compatibility. It believes that this would prevent CPU boards tested in "quiet" combinations from being used in far "noisier" configura­ tions once they are marketed. Dell states that replacement CPU boards are aggressively marketed and broadly distrib­ uted today to both commercial accounts and residential users through mail order channels and discount computer stores. It submits that CPU boards should be tested, at a minimum, in a typical configuration. Dell further submits that if the manufacturer of the CPU board targets or specifies a particular system for its equipment, the CPU board should be tested in a configuration that includes the other components of that system. Dell also observes that a computer base unit with no CPU board installed is exempt from our current rules since this equipment falls outside the definition of an unintentional radiator. 5 FCC Red No. 20 Communications Commission Record FCC 90-307 8. The CBEMA Petition. Similar to the position of IBM, CBEMA states that the Commission needs to clarify its intended regulatory treatment of "control cards" and "processor boards" that are entirely internal and may be retailed as upgrade devices. It observes that boards that increase the operating or processing speed of a computer, such as co-processors, are defined in the rules as periph­ eral devices while a card that only provides processing capability, i.e., a CPU board, and is marketed without an enclosure or a power supply is a subassembly.8 CBEMA adds that, while it is not common today for a CPU board to be sold to consumers on a stand-alone basis, this may not be true in the near future. Further, CBEMA submits that the manufacturer of the CPU board may not be the same party as the manufacturer of the computer base unit. CBEMA states that clearly the intent of the rules indicates that a CPU board should be treated as a periph­ eral, but this result is not obtained. Thus, CBEMA re­ quests that the rules be changed to treat CPU boards as peripheral devices. 9. CBEMA also requests that the reference to control cards be removed from the definition of peripheral de­ vices or that the definition be modified to read "control cards controlling and with interfaces to external periph­ erals." CBEMA contends that the reference to "control cards" in the Commission's definition of peripheral de­ vices is inappropriate. CBEMA states that many control cards do not meet the criteria for a peripheral device as they are not external to the computer, internal with an external interface or "turbo" cards or "enhancement" boards.9 DISCUSSION 10. We agree with the petitioners that there is a need to reevaluate our regulations for digital devices. It is our intention that the Part 15 rules provide industry with the flexibility needed to allow it to continue to advance new designs and construction techniques without unnecessary regulations. At the same time. the rules must also be effective in controlling the interference potential of the resulting digital device systems. Since the Commission first adopted standards for digital devices, there have been considerable changes in the manner in which such equip­ ment is designed and marketed to consumers. 10 In addi­ tion to the petitions submitted by IBM and CBEMA, the Commission has received several requests to authorize CPU boards by parties wishing to market modular com­ puter systems. Authorization of CPU boards would pro­ vide additional flexibility for equipment manufacturers. Currently, manufacturers must individually seek authori­ zation for every combination of base unit and CPU board they market. 11 This is expensive and time consuming, and may limit equipment design flexibility by discouraging manufacturers from introducing new products. 11. We believe that CPU boards are similar to "turbo" cards and "enhancement" boards which currently are considered peripheral devices under our rules. Both CPU boards and "turbo" cards contain microprocessors that operate at high clock rates and are primary sources of the emissions radiated by a computer. We believe the general interference potential of CPu boards is approximately the same as that of peripherals that contain microprocessors. Accordingly, we propose to include CPU boards under the definition of a peripheral device, thereby making CPU 5653 boards subject to the same testing, authorization, labelling and other requirements applicable to Part 15 digital de­ vices.12 12. By treating a CPU board as a peripheral device, we would allow anyone to install or replace the CPU board in a certified computer system, provided the board is replaced with a CPU board that has been certified and labelled as a peripheral device. The modified computers would not be subject to further testing, certification, or labelling requirements. Separate authorization of the CPU board as a peripheral device would be required only if the CPU board is to be marketed as a stand-alone device. If the CPU board always would be marketed as part of a computer system, a single authorization may be obtained for that system. As with other Part 15 devices, the sale or lease of a CPU board to a second party for further manu­ facture would not be subject to our marketing rules, nor would it be subject to our requirement that the CPU board be authorized prior to the sale. 13 We believe that these proposals would provide substantial benefits to man­ ufacturers, system integrators and consumers by providing them the flexibility to configure a computer system to the user's needs without unnecessary and burdensome testing, certification, and labelling requirements. 13. Our initial assessment is that treatment of CPU boards as peripheral devices would not result in increased interference from personal computers. As a peripheral device, a CPU board would be required to be tested installed in a computer system representative of the type in which it would be installed. This testing would evaluate whether the shielding and filtering provided by a com­ puter generally is sufficient to allow the system to comply with our standards. We recognize, however, that the abil ­ ity of a personal computer to comply with our limits is dependent upon a complex interaction between both the CPU board and the basic computer in which it is in­ stalled. Accordingly, we request comments on whether the treatment of CPU boards as peripheral devices is likely to result in an increased risk of non-compliance by personal computers and/or an increase in the interference potential of these systems. Parties that believe more stringent regu­ lation is needed should provide supporting information and suggest alternatives. We may adopt different ap­ proaches to the testing and authorization of CPU boards if the record indicates that our proposal is not workable. 14. We also propose to modify the definition of a peripheral device by removing the reference to control cards, as requested by CBEMA. As CBEMA observes, not all internal control cards connect by wire to external devices. Our reference to control cards in the definition of peripheral devices appears to be misleading and unnec­ essary. 15. As noted above. several manufacturers already have expressed an interest in introducing modular computer systems. Further. users are replacing CPU boards in exist­ ing computers with boards that may cause the system to interfere with other radio frequency operations. Thus. we believe that any changes to the rules resulting from this proposal need to be implemented as soon as possible. We propose to require all digital devices manufactured, im­ ported or marketed on or after six months from the date final regulations are published in the Federal Register to comply with the new rules. FCC 90-307 Federal Communications Commission Record 5 FCC Red No. 20 PROCEDURAL MATTERS 16. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sec­ tions 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, inter­ ested parties may file comments on or before December 13, 1990 and reply comments on or before January 14, 1991 All relevant and timely comments will be considered by the Commission before final action is taken in this proceeding. To file formally in this proceeding, partici­ pants must file an original and four copies of all com­ ments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If participants want each Commissioner to receive a per­ sonal copy of their comments, an original plus nine copies must be filed. Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office of the Secretary, Federal Com­ munications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Com­ ments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Dockets Reference Room (Room 239) of the Federal Communica­ tions Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. 17. For the purposes of this non-restricted notice and comment rule making proceeding, members of the public are advised that ex parte presentations are permitted ex­ cept during the Sunshine Agenda period. See generally ·Section 1.1206(a). The Sunshine Agenda period is the period of time which commences with the release of a public notice that a matter has been placed on the Sun­ shine Agenda and terminates when the Commission (1) releases the text of a decision or order in this matter; (2) issues a public notice stating that the matter has been deleted from the Sunshine Agenda; or (3) issues a public notice stating that the matter has been returned to the staff for further consideration, whichever occurs first. Sec­ tion 1.1202(f). During the Sunshine Agenda period, no presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are permitted unless specifically requested by the Commission or staff for the clarification or adduction of evidence or the resolution of issues in the proceeding. Section 1.1203. 18. In general, an ex par.te presentation is any presenta­ tion directed to the merits or outcome of the proceeding made to decision-making personnel which (1) if written, is not served on the parties to the proceeding, or (2), if oral, is made without advance notice to the parties to the proceeding and without opportunity for them to be present. Section 1.1202(b). Any person who makes or submits a written ex parte presentation shall provide on the same day it is submitted two copies of same under separate cover to the Commission's Secretary for inclu­ sion in the public record. The presentation (as well as any transmittal letter) must clearly indicate on its face the docket number of the particular proceeding(s) to which it relates and the fact that two copies of it have been submit­ ted to the Secretary, and must be labelled or captioned as an ex parte presentation. 19. Any person who in making an oral ex parte pre­ sentation presents data or arguments not already reflected in that person's written comments, memoranda. or other previous filings in that proceeding shall provide on the day of the oral presentation an original and one copy of a written memorandum to the Secretary (with a copy to the Commissioner or staff member involved) which summa­ rizes the data and arguments. The memorandum (as well as any transmittal letter) must clearly indicate on its face the docket number of the particular proceeding and the 5654 fact that an original and one copy of it have been submit­ ted to the Secretary, and must be labelled or captioned as an ex parte presentation, Section 1.1206. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 20. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 USC Section 603, the Commission's initial analysis is as follows: I. Need and purpose of this action: Demands from consumers for customized systems have resulted in the marketing and use of computers designed to be configured using interchangeable CPU boards. How­ ever, under the current rules CPU boards are defined as subassemblies. Thus, CPU boards are not directly subject to the standards, and the addition of these boards to a computer may result in a system that does not comply with our standards. Further, the current rules require computers to be tested and authorized as systems. This prohibits the marketing of a computer containing a CPU board other than the one with which it was authorized. Thus, the current rules limit the amount of design flexi­ bility available to manufacturers and consumers. II. Objectives: The objectives of the proposed changes to the rules are: 1) to reduce the potential for interference to radio ser­ vices by improving our ability to ensure that digital de­ vices employed by consumers comply with our standards; 2) to reduce burdens on the manufacturers; and, 3) to remove impediments to flexible system design and con­ struction techniques. III. Legal basis: The actions proposed herein are taken pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 301, 302 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. IV. Description, potential impact and number of small entities affected: The actions proposed in this proceeding will increase the number and type of digital components subject to our standards, testing and equipment authorization require­ ments. On this basis alone, the workload and filing re­ quirements may increase, both to small and to large entities. However, as these changes to the rules will ob­ viate the need to test and authorize every possible digital system configuration, it is possible that the overall workload and filing requirements will decrease. Still, some small entities that manufacture onlv CPU boards may find that they are now subject to ·our standards whereas. under the current rules their devices were con­ sidered to be subassemblies. Because of the lack of filing requirements under the current rules, any such entities are unknown to the Commission. We are unable to fur­ ther quantify the potential effects of these actions on small entities. Comments are requested on this subject. 5 FCC Red No. 20 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90-307 V. Recording, recordkeeping and other compliance re­ quirements: As shown above, CPU boards which were not pre­ viously subject to our rules are proposed to be included under our standards and authorization requirements. The impact of these requirements will be substantially reduced by permitting a one-time authorization of CPU boards, which could then be used in multiple computer systems without testing and authorizing each possible system con­ figuration. Thus, we do not expect any increase in the overall recordkeeping requirements. VI. Federal rules which overlap, duplicate or conflict with these rules: None. VII. Any significant alternatives m1mm1zmg impact on small entities and consistent with the stated objectives: None. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT 21. The proposal herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and found to impose a new or modified information collection require­ ment on the public. Implementation of any new or modi­ fied requirement will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget as prescribed by the Act. 22. For further information on this proceeding contact the Technical Standards Branch, Room 7122, Office of Engineering and Technology, FCC, Washington, D.C. 20554, (202) 653-6288. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Donna R. Searcy Secretary FOOTNOTES 1 See Petition for Reconsideration filed by IBM on May 26, 1989, and Petition for Limited Reconsideration filed by CBEMA on May 26, 1989, in response to the First Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 87-389, 4 FCC Red 3493 (1989). The issues raised in the IBM and CBEMA petitions were not addressed in the First Report and Order. Thus, the changes recommended by IBM and CBEMA can not be implemented through reconsider­ ation. Accordingly, they are being addressed in this separate proposal. We will consider other issues raised by CBEMA in a separate proceeding. 2 Radio frequency (RF) energy is defined as electromagnetic energy at any frequency in the radio spectrum between 9 kHz and 3,000,000 MHz. See 47 CFR Section l5.3(u). Digital devices are unintentional radiators that generate and use timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses (cycles) per second and use digital techniques. See 47 CFR Section l5.3(k). Periph- 5655 era! devices are input/output devices that feed data into and/or receive data from the central processing unit of a digital device. See 47 CFR Section 15.3(r). 3 See 47 CFR Section 15.3(z). 4 See 47 CFR Section 15.101(a). The Commission's certifica­ tion procedure is set forth in 47 CFR Sections 2.901, et seq. Class B personal computers are computers marketed for use in a residential environment. See 47 CFR Section 15.3(i) and (s). 5 IBM uses the term "CPU board" to refer to a circuit board containing one or more microprocessors primarily intended to execute user-provided programming, but not including (1) a circuit board that contains only a microprocessor(s) intended to operate under the primary control or instruction of a micropro­ cessor(s) external to such circuit board; or, (2) a circuit board that is a dedicated controller for a storage or input/output device. For simplicity, we will use the term "CPU board", as suggested by IBM, within this notice. 6 A computer base unit consists of the enclosure, power supply and, possibly, other components, within which a CPU board is installed. Under the current rules, when computer base units and CPU boards are marketed separately, they are consid­ ered to be subassemblies and are not subject to the standards or equipment authorization requirements. 7 Under the current rules. peripheral devices are only re­ quired to be tested in one representative system configuration. See 47 CFR Section 15.310). 8 Circuit boards designed to increase the operating or process­ ing speed of a computer are subject to authorization under the certification or verification procedure. See 47 CFR Sections 15.3(r) and 15.101(a) and (e). 9 "Turbo" cards and "enhancement" boards are circuit boards designed for interchangeable mounting, internally or externally, that increase the operating or processing speed of a computer. 10 See First Report and Order - Technical Standards for Com­ puting Equipment in Docket No. 20780, adopted September 18, 1979, 44 Fed. Reg. 59530, October 16, 1979. 11 See 47 CFR Section 15.10l(c). If a manufacturer wishes to produce, for example, three computer base units and three CPU boards, each combination must be authorized, resulting in nine tests and nine authorizations. In addition, each combination must be labelled with the FCC Identifier number representative of the specific combination being marketed. 12 See 47 CFR Sections 15.3(r), 15.19, 15.21, 15.27, 15.31, 15.101 and 15.105. 13 The marketing rules and equipment authorization require­ ments are applicable only when the product is sold or leased to a user or to an equipment vendor for subsequent sale or lease to a user. See 47 CFR Sections 2.803, 2.805 and 2.806.