ARRL

ARRL General Bulletin ARLB060 (1995)

SB QST @ ARL $ARLB060
ARLB060 Response to RFI proposal
 
ZCZC AG27
QST de W1AW  
ARRL Bulletin 60  ARLB060
>From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT  June 13, 1995
To all radio amateurs 
 
SB QST ARL ARLB060
ARLB060 Response to RFI proposal
 
The ARRL has commented on an FCC proposal to deregulate the
equipment and testing requirements for personal computers,
peripherals, and individual components (in ET Docket No. 95-19).
 
The FCC proposal, made in February, would not change the substantive
regulations governing unintentional emissions from Class B digital
devices, and there is no proposal in this proceeding to increase the
amount of permitted RF energy from personal computers, peripherals
or their components.
 
''Theoretically,'' the League said,  ''radio amateurs will not be
affected by this proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that the
Commission's certification procedure is specifically intended to
ensure that unintentional radiator devices not cause interference to
radio services such as broadcasting, aeronautical and maritime
communications, and the Amateur Service.''
 
But the League did express concern that the FCC was proposing to
give up oversight that in the past has kept interference from Class
B computing devices to radio receivers within ''practicable limits.''
This is a special consideration, the League said, now that many
radio amateurs have PCs as permanent parts of their stations.  The
League said it was important that the FCC reaffirm its intention to
increase enforcement against noncompliant devices.
 
The League said it is the concern of the amateur community that new
testing procedures could allow on the market more devices that
either are not tested, do not meet RF emission requirements, or
both.
 
The ARRL said its greatest fear is that there will not be
significant enforcement of the new rules, nor any effort to evaluate
the level of compliance on the part of the manufacturers, and that
there will be no disincentive to simply market noncompliant
products.  Since the Commission's field offices today seldom respond
to complaints of interference to home electronics products, the only
time that such issues can be adequately addressed is at the time an
unlicensed device is marketed for sale to the public, the League
said.
 
Finally, the ARRL said that since Class B PCs can malfunction due to
close-by RF fields, that every PC's Declaration of Conformity should
identify where the owner can go for assistance in getting the device
to function properly in the presence of RF.
NNNN
/EX