Supplier's Declaration of Conformity - 美国FCC的DoC&VoC正式变更为FCC SDOC Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment The Commission adopted its proposal to replace two of the existing equipment authorization procedures (Declaration of Conformity (DoC) and verification) with a single process—“Supplier's Declaration of Conformity” (SDoC). Verification and DoC are both self-approval processes under which the party responsible for the compliance of the RF device has been required to take the necessary steps (testing or analysis) to ensure that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards. DoC incorporates additional requirements: Compliance testing must be performed by an accredited testing laboratory and the manufacturer must include of a written compliance statement (i.e., a “Declaration of Conformity”) in the literature furnished to the user and affix a specific FCC logo on the equipment identification label to signify that the equipment meets the Commission's regulations. The Commission determined that, with the advancement in testing technologies, equipment and standards, there is no longer a need to require DoC devices to be tested for compliance by accredited test laboratories. It further noted that without the requirement for laboratory accreditation, the DoC and verification procedures are quite similar. The Commission concluded that adoption of SDoC as single self-approval process would simplify the equipment authorization requirements and reduce confusion as to which process may apply to any given device, while continuing to adequately ensure compliance with its rules. Under SDoC, the responsible party for equipment will test equipment for compliance to specified standards or requirements and supply a statement with the product that certifies that the equipment complies with the rules and identifies the responsible party. This information can be included with other information provided to the user instead of being displayed on the device itself. The Commission found the few arguments against merging DoC and verification (primarily that the Commission should not relax its testing requirements) did not diminish its overall confidence in the adopted SDoC process or its belief that streamlining the procedures by eliminating selected elements would not appreciably raise the risk of harmful interference from devices so approved. Testing and laboratory accreditation. The Commission modified its proposal to eliminate the rule common to verification and DoC that permitted responsible parties to “take other necessary steps” instead of testing to ensure compliance. To resolve commenter's concerns, the Commission decided to continue to specify in its rules that other “measures” will be acceptable to validate the compliance of a device. Such specific acceptable testing procedures would draw upon the types of standardized procedures and voluntary standards that have been incorporated by reference and endorsed in its guidance documents. Compliance information and logo. The Commission adopted its proposal to require all SDoC devices to be marketed with a compliance statement. It found that such a statement will offer assurance that equipment has been determined to be compliant for use in the United States according to the Commission's technical regulations, will allow the Commission to more readily associate the equipment with the party responsible for compliance, and will meet the public's need for information about manufacturers and origins of products. The Commission had initially proposed not to require a specific logo be placed on the device (an element of the existing DoC requirements). It declined the suggestion of several commenters to allow the FCC logo to be used in lieu of the compliance statement, finding that the compliance statement conveys specific information about a product that a consumer cannot independently ascertain from the FCC logo, and that continuing to require the FCC logo would create an unnecessary burden on device manufacturers. Accordingly, it adopted a rule that allows the FCC logo to be physically placed on a device at the discretion of the responsible party consistent with the practices currently specified in §§ 15.19 and 18.209, and only if its device complies with the applicable equipment authorization rules. While the use of such a logo may provide conveniences for the responsible party, its presence will not obviate the need to provide required compliance information or maintain pertinent records related to device testing. Other requirements. The Commission did not adopt its proposal to require a statement with additional information when equipment has been modified, but is nevertheless still subject to the self-approval process. Noting that, when considered as a whole, the rules require the responsible party to provide up-to-date compliance information with each device, the Commission found this information to be sufficient. The existing technical standards pertaining to Class A (commercial/industrial) and Class B (residential/home) digital devices remains otherwise unchanged. Scope The Commission applied the new SDoC process to all equipment currently subject to the DoC and verification procedures. It took no action to re-visit which equipment authorization process is most appropriate for certain specific categories of devices, but recognized that, in the event specific types of RF devices authorized via SDoC are later found more likely to cause harmful interference due to difficulties in the design, manufacturing, or testing processes, it has the option to remove such devices from the self-approval procedure and subject them to the certification process. Certification is a more stringent approval process that requires, among other things, the use of accredited laboratories. Under parts 15 and 18 of its rules, a responsible party can choose to use the certification process in lieu of DoC for the approval of certain unintentional radiators. The Commission explicitly provided in the SDoC rules that parties may opt to undergo the more rigorous certification process for the equipment authorization for any device. This regulatory option places no burdens on a responsible party, as it is only an option, and parties can later decide to revert to the SDoC procedures, if, for example they decide that the costs associated with certification outweighs the benefits. Transition Period. The Commission permitted manufacturers to continue to use the existing DoC or verification procedures for up to one year from the effective date of the rules if they so choose. E-Labeling. In furtherance of the Enhance Labeling, Accessing, and Branding of Electronic Licenses Act (E-LABEL Act), the Commission adopted new rules to will codify its existing electronic labeling procedures. The E-LABEL Act, which applies to all radiofrequency devices authorized by the Commission that have the “capability to digitally display labeling and regulatory information,” directed it “to promulgate regulations or take other appropriate action, as necessary, to allow manufacturers of radiofrequency devices with display the option to use electronic labeling for the equipment in place of affixing physical labels to the equipment.” The adopted rules generally allow a radiofrequency device to electronically display any labels required by our rules, including the FCC ID required for certified devices, as well as any warning statements or other information that our rules require to be placed on a physical label on the device. Capability of a device to digitally display information. The E-LABEL Act applies to “radiofrequency device with display,” which are defined as equipment or devices that require Commission authorization prior to marketing and sale, and that “ha[ve] the capability to digitally display” required information. The Commission concluded that if the labeling and regulatory information cannot be displayed to the intended recipient “in a manner that effects its purpose,” the device is incapable of digitally displaying the required information as required by the E-LABEL Act. AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) amends its equipment authorization regulations, increasing the Commission's agility to respond to changes in technology and industry standards. This rule consolidates, simplifies, and streamlines certain procedures, and removes the requirement to file the import declaration FCC Form 740 under certain circumstances. DATES: Effective November 2, 2017. The incorporation by reference listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 2, 2017. ADDRESSES: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-93A1.docx https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-11-02/pdf/2017-23217.pdf https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/02/2017-23217/authorization-of-radiofrequency-equipment 2017 年 11 月 2 日，美国联邦通信委员会（FCC）官方发布消息称，为简化无线装置设备的认证流程和明确电子标签使用规范， DoC & VoC 计划正式变更为 SDoC 。 SDoC，即 Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity ，设备供应商（注：该供应商必须是美国当地的公司）将对符合规定标准或要求的设备进行检测，符合规定的设备需提供相关文件（如 SDoC 的声明文件）向公众提供证明。 SDoC 政策简化了之前繁复的 FCC 认证要求，进一步减轻了企业的负担。
SDoC 政策措施如下： 1. 简化自我审批的程序。FCC 决定用 SDoC 形式替代现有的 FCC VoC 和 FCC DoC 。 2. 允许使用电子标签。 FCC 规定使用电子标签，所需信息须显示在产品上或以其他方式提供的产品上，如 FCC 识别号码和符合性声明。 3. 减轻繁琐的进口声明和要求。该命令不再需要向 Customs and Border Protection （CBP）提交 RF 设备的美国进口声明，并对委员会规则进行修改，以澄清与进口设备相关的合规性要求。 4. 重新修订测量程序和澄清标准。该命令修改了委员会的测量程序，以简化和整合不同服务中设备的使用要求，使之更具灵活性。 5. 由责任方（美国当地代理商），并随产品提供一份声明（提签署并提供SDOC声明信），证明设备符合规则并确定责任方。 该政策在公布之日即 2017 年 11 月 2 日起已生效，但仍有一年过渡期，过渡期内可选择继续使用 FCC VoC 和 DoC 认证程序；过渡期前做的 FCC VoC 和 DoC 认证程序是始终有效的，如果产品有修改，则需重新认证；通过 FCC SDoC 认证程序的产品将可自主选择标记或不标记 FCC logo；SDoC 要求增加符合声明文件到设备随附文件中，符合声明需包含：美国当地供应商的名称、地址或联系网址等必要信息。 总体来说，FCC SDoC认证程序比原有程序更加简化而清晰，FCC SDoC认证程序允许使用电子标签并同时减少了繁琐的进口声明要求。对于FCC的SDoC的详细要求和具体介会在《关于拟定的FCC SDoC程序的一些说明》会在评论中公布。 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 211 / Thursday, November 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations  2017-23217.pdfBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 FCC-17-93A1.pdf FCC-17-93A1.docx |
