[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31685-31690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15396]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2, 25, and 68
[GEN Docket No. 98-68; FCC 98-92]
Streamlining the Equipment Authorization Process; Implementation
of Mutual Recognition Agreements and the GMPCS MOU
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is proposing to amend the rules to provide the
option of private sector approval of equipment that currently requires
an approval by the Commission. It is also proposing rule changes to
implement a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) for product approvals
with the European Community (EC) and to allow for similar agreements
with other foreign trade parties. These actions are intended to
eliminate the need for manufacturers to wait for approval from the
Commission before marketing equipment in the United States, thereby
reducing the time needed to bring a product to market. The Commission
is also proposing an interim procedure to issue equipment approvals for
Global Mobile Personal Communication for Satellite (GMPCS) terminals
prior to domestic implementation of the GMPCS-MOU Arrangements. That
action would benefit manufacturers of GMPCS terminals by allowing
greater worldwide acceptance of their products.
DATES: Comments are due July 27, 1998, reply comments are due August
10, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh L. Van Tuyl, (202) 418-7506 or
Julius P. Knapp, (202) 418-2468, Office of Engineering and Technology.
For part 68 specific questions, contact Geraldine Matise, (202) 418-
2320 or Vincent M. Paladini, (202) 418-2332, Common Carrier Bureau. For
part 25 specific questions, contact Tracey Weisler at 202-418-0744.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, GEN Docket 98-68, FCC 98-92, adopted May 14,
1998, and released May 18, 1998. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's
duplication contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-
3800, 1231 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036.
Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making
1. The Commission proposes to further streamline its part 2
equipment authorization program and to commence streamlining of part 68
of its rules in order to enable designated private parties to certify
and register equipment. The Commission also proposes modifications to
parts 2 and 68 of its rules to implement the Mutual Recognition
Agreement between the United States and the European Community (US/EC
MRA) and to prepare for future mutual recognition agreements that the
United States may enter into. The US/EC MRA serves the interests of the
United States by promoting trade and competition in the provision of
telecommunications products and increasing access to EC markets by
reducing the costs, delays, and other burdens upon manufacturers
seeking to have their products approved for sale in the EC. The
Commission also proposes to approve terminals used in the GMPCS service
prior to domestic implementation of the GMPCS-MoU Arrangements.
Part 2 Authorization Program Streamlining
2. In the Report and Order (``Order'') in ET Docket No. 97-94,
adopted April 2, 1998, and released, April 16, 1998, the Commission
took several important steps to reduce the burden of the part 2
equipment authorization program. Those actions simplified the equipment
authorization rules, thus making it easier to understand and comply
with the rules. Many types of equipment that previously required
Commission approval were shifted to manufacturer self-approval, thereby
eliminating delays in bringing products to the market. Finally, the FCC
equipment authorization process was streamlined by implementing an
electronic filing system for applications.
3. While manufacturer self-approval is appropriate for many types
of products, certain products require closer oversight due to such
factors as a high risk of noncompliance, the potential to create
significant interference to safety and other communications services,
and the need to ensure compliance with requirements to protect against
radio frequency exposure. Products that currently require FCC
certification include mobile radio transmitters, unlicensed radio
transmitters and scanning receivers. The Commission is not proposing
any further relaxations of the certification requirements for various
equipment at this time. It requests comments on these conclusions. The
Commission notes, however, that in 1996 Congress gave it explicit
authority to authorize the use of private organizations for testing and
certifying equipment. See 47 U.S.C. 302(e). The Commission believes
that it would be beneficial to exercise this authority by allowing
parties other than the Commission to certify equipment. Allowing
parties other than the Commission to certify equipment would provide
manufacturers with alternatives where they could possibly obtain
certification faster than available from the Commission. Further, by
providing for other product certifiers, manufacturers would have the
option of obtaining certification from a facility in a more convenient
location. An additional benefit of allowing other parties to certify
equipment would be a
[[Page 31686]]
reduction in the number of applications filed with the Commission. This
would enable the Commission to redirect resources to enforcement of the
rules. Finally, allowing equipment to be certified by parties located
in other countries is an essential and necessary step for concluding
mutual recognition agreements, as discussed further below. In light of
these considerations, the Commission is proposing to allow private
organizations to certify equipment as an alternative to certification
by the Commission. The Commission will refer to these organizations as
``Telecommunication Certification Bodies'', or TCBs, since their
purpose will be to grant certification to telecommunication equipment.
4. Qualification Criteria for TCBs. The Commission believes that it
is important to establish appropriate qualification criteria for
Telecommunication Certification Bodies to ensure that the equipment
they certify complies with the Commission's rules. The Commission notes
that section 302(e) of the Communications Act gives it authority to
establish qualifications and standards for private organizations that
may be authorized to certify equipment. The Commission observes that an
international standard already exists that establishes appropriate
qualifications for product certifiers: the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) / International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC) Guide 65 (1996), General requirements for bodies operating
product certification systems. ISO/IEC Guide 65 requires that product
certifiers must:
Be impartial.
Be responsible for their decisions.
Have a quality system.
Have personnel with knowledge and experience relating to
the type of work performed.
Document the certification system.
Maintain records of approvals.
Conduct internal audits.
Perform post-market surveillance.
Further requirements and details are included in the standard. The
Commission tentatively concludes that for the purposes of part 2 of the
Commission's rules, ISO/IEC Guide 65 provides appropriate qualification
criteria for TCBs. Further, the Commission notes that ISO/IEC Guide 65
is expected to be used as the primary qualification criteria for TCBs
under mutual recognition agreements, so use of this document for
domestic purposes will facilitate acceptance of U.S. certifications
internationally and thereby promote U.S. trade abroad. The Commission
invites comment on its proposal to use ISO/IEC Guide 65 as the
qualification criteria for TCBs.
5. In addition to the general requirements of ISO/IEC Guide 65, the
Commission believes certain additional specific requirements are
appropriate to qualify as a TCB. The telecommunication certification
body must demonstrate expert knowledge of the regulations for each
product with respect to which the body seeks designation. Such
expertise must include familiarity with all applicable technical
regulations, administrative provisions or requirements, as well as the
policies and procedures used in the application thereof. The Commission
also believes that the telecommunication certification body should have
the technical expertise and capability to test the equipment it will
certify and must also be accredited in accordance with ISO/IEC Guide
25, General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories, to demonstrate it is competent to perform such tests. The
prospective telecommunication certification body must demonstrate an
ability to recognize situations where interpretations of the
regulations or test procedures may be necessary. The appropriate key
certification and laboratory personnel must demonstrate a knowledge of
how to obtain current and correct technical regulation interpretations.
Finally, the Commission will require TCBs to make a commitment to
participate in any consultative activities identified by the Commission
to establish a common understanding and interpretation of applicable
regulations. The Commission invites comments on these proposals and
whether any additional requirements may be appropriate.
6. Procedure for Designating TCBs. To show compliance with the
Commission's qualification criteria, the Commission is proposing to
require that parties desiring to be TCBs be evaluated and approved by
the National Institute of Standards and Technology under its National
Voluntary Conformity Assessment System Evaluation (NVCASE) program. The
Commission proposes to designate as a TCB any organization that is
accredited by NIST under the NVCASE program, and will publish a list of
all designated TCBs. The Commission invites comments as to any concerns
about requiring accreditation by NIST, particularly regarding cost
issues. An alternative to requiring NVCASE accreditation would be for
the Commission to establish and administer its own program for
designating TCBs. Comments are invited on this alternative.
7. The Commission understands that under the NVCASE program a TCB's
accreditation may be suspended or revoked for just cause. The
Commission invites comment regarding enforcement and monitoring of TCB
standards and performance. The Commission also invites comment as to
the procedures that may be appropriate for suspension or revocation of
a TCB's designation. In the event of suspension or revocation or other
disciplinary action against a TCB, any equipment that was certified by
that TCB can continue to be imported and marketed provided that
equipment otherwise conforms with the Commission's rules. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
8. Implementation Matters. With respect to the designation of TCBs
for certification of product compliance with part 2 of the Commission's
rules, the Commission recognizes that there are a number of details
that must be addressed before it can allow TCBs to certify equipment.
As a general matter, the Commission expects TCBs to perform much the
same application processing functions that are currently performed at
the Commission's laboratory in Columbia, Maryland. In this regard, the
Commission is proposing the following policies and guidelines with
regard to certification of products by TCBs:
(a) Certification must be based on the submittal to the TCB of an
application that contains all the information required under the
Commission's rules.
(b) TCBs will be required to issue a written grant of
certification.
(c) The grantee of certification will remain the party responsible
to the Commission for compliance of the product.
(d) The certification must be based on type testing as defined in
subclause 1.2(a) of ISO/IEC Guide 65, and the type testing should
normally be done on only one unmodified sample of the equipment for
which approval is sought. This is the way the Commission currently
handles the certification of products, which its experience has shown
works well.
(e) The Commission will not restrict the fees that TCBs may charge
for certification.
(f) TCBs may either perform the required compliance testing
themselves, or may accept and review the test data from manufacturers
or other laboratories. TCBs may also subcontract with others to perform
the testing. However, the TCB remains responsible for ensuring that the
tests were performed as required and in this regard TCBs are expected
to perform periodic
[[Page 31687]]
audits to ensure that the data they may receive from others is indeed
reliable.
(g) Equipment certified by a TCB must meet all the Commission's
labelling requirements, including the use of an FCC Identifier.
(h) The Commission will require TCBs to submit an electronic copy
of each granted application to the Commission using the new electronic
filing system for equipment authorization applications. This will allow
the Commission to easily verify whether a piece of equipment has been
approved without having to locate the TCB which approved it and obtain
the records. It will also allow the Commission to monitor the
activities of the TCBs to determine how many approvals are issued and
for what types of equipment. Finally, this would create a common
database that all parties can use to verify approvals and obtain copies
of applications. Where appropriate, the file should be accompanied by a
request for confidentiality for any material that qualifies as trade
secrets.
(i) TCBs may approve requests for permissive changes to certified
equipment, irrespective of who originally certified the equipment.
(j) The Commission will require TCBs to periodically perform audits
of equipment on the market that they have certified to ensure continued
compliance.
The Commission invites comment on these proposals and any other
implementation issues that may need to be addressed. The Commission is
particularly interested in any alternative proposals that are less
burdensome while still ensuring the integrity of the certification
program.
9. While the Commission proposes to empower TCBs with authority to
certify equipment, it believes that certain functions related to
certification should not be delegated by the Commission. TCBs may not
waive the Commission's rules. TCBs may not address new or novel issues
requiring interpretation of the Commission's technical standards,
testing requirements, or certification procedures. TCBs will not be
empowered to authorize transfers of control of grants of certification.
TCBs may not take enforcement action and must refer to the Commission
any matters of noncompliance of which they become aware. Finally, any
decision made by a TCB would be appealable to the Commission. The
Commission solicits comment on these proposals. The Commission intends
to give TCBs clear guidelines as to how to exercise their new authority
and seek comment on what those guidelines should be.
10. The Commission believes that a transition period of 24 months
will be necessary before it may allow TCBs to certify equipment. This
is similar to the provisions contained in the EC MRA and would provide
parity between domestic and international product certifiers. The
Commission would seek to have the 24 month period coincide with the
transition period for the EC MRA. During the 24 month period, the
Commission will work closely with NIST on the evaluation and
accreditation of TCBs. The Commission will also work with the TCBs to
ensure that they are fully familiar with the Commission's rules and
will follow the same procedures the Commission does in approving
equipment. The Commission seeks suggestions for ways it can make the
transition to allowing TCBs to certify equipment as quick, smooth and
effective as possible.
11. The Commission plans to continue to certify equipment for the
foreseeable future, for a number of reasons. First, it will help smooth
the transition to the new system until any major problems with it are
resolved. Also, some manufacturers may prefer FCC certification for
business reasons, since an approval issued by the U.S. Government may
seem more legitimate to potential customers than one issued by another
party. Finally, it is possible that certifiers may not emerge for
certain types of equipment, so the Commission may be the only party
available to approve it. However, the Commission requests comments on
whether it should eventually stop issuing approvals, and rely solely on
designated TCBs. The Commission also invites comments on concerns with
the implementation of a new system, and any areas not covered above
that need to be addressed.
The Part 68 Registration Program
12. In anticipation of the implementation of the US/EC MRA into
part 68 of the Commission's Rules, the Commission recognizes the
importance of maintaining parity between TCBs based in the United
States and those based in the EC. The Commission tentatively concludes
that the regulatory treatment of TCBs and the requirements for
certification and registration of terminal equipment should be
consistent, regardless of whether a TCB is located in the United States
or in the EC. The Commission also tentatively concludes that
manufacturers and suppliers in the United States and the EC should face
comparable requirements with respect to part 68 certification and
registration. The Commission seeks comment on these tentative
conclusions.
13. The Commission seeks comment on the specific activities that
certification bodies in the United States should be empowered to
perform on behalf of domestic manufacturers and suppliers with respect
to part 68 certification and registration of products marketed in the
United States. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether
certification bodies should be permitted to perform conformance
assessment, certification and registration activities. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether and to what extent Commission supervision
of these activities is necessary.
14. The Commission seeks comment on practices and requirements that
will enable it to designate certification bodies that are competent to
perform part 68 activities without direct Commission supervision. With
respect to this proposal, the Commission seeks comment on the range of
issues presented for TCB designation under part 2 of the Commission's
rules, including qualification criteria, procedures for designating
TCBs and other implementation matters. Because part 68 test procedures
differ from those used for parts 2, 15, and 18, TCBs that propose to
certify equipment for compliance with part 68 will need to demonstrate
competence in part 68 testing and knowledge of part 68 rules. The
Commission tentatively concludes that TCB qualification criteria should
be based on ISO/IEC Guide 65 and designation of TCBs would be performed
by NIST in consultation with the Commission in the same manner as it
has proposed with respect to part 2. The Commission seeks comment on
these proposals.
15. The Commission also seeks comment on the methods by which TCBs
may demonstrate their competence to test, certify and register
products. For example, the Commission seeks comment on whether TCBs
should use Form FCC 730 to transmit test data to the Commission for
equipment registration. The Commission seeks comment identifying
criteria for certification reports or notices that the Commission may
require from TCBs that have been designated as competent to perform
part 68 certification activity.
Mutual Recognition Agreements
16. The Office of the United States Trade Representative and the
Department of Commerce have participated in negotiations over the past
several years to develop a mutual recognition agreement for product
approvals with the European Community. The Federal
[[Page 31688]]
Communications Commission has also participated in these negotiations,
as have industry representatives from both the United States and
Europe. These negotiations culminated on June 21, 1997 when the US/EC
MRA was finalized by the United States Trade Representative and a
representative of the European Community. The Agreement is expected to
be signed in London on May 18, 1998.
17. A copy of the completed MRA is being inserted in the record for
this proceeding. The Commission's regulations apply directly to two
industry sectors, telecommunications equipment and electromagnetic
compatibility (``EMC''), among the six specifically addressed by the
US/EC MRA. The telecommunications sector addresses terminal equipment
covered by part 68 of the rules, and transmitters covered by part 2 and
other parts of the Commission's rules. The EMC sector applies to
equipment addressed by parts 15 and 18 of the Commission's rules.
18. Under the US/EC MRA, products can be tested and certified in
the United States in conformance with the European technical
requirements. The products may be shipped directly to Europe without
any further testing or certification. In return, the MRA obligates the
United States to permit parties in Europe to test and authorize
equipment based on the United States technical requirements. The US/EC
MRA thereby promotes bilateral market access and competition in the
provision of telecommunications products and electronic equipment. The
US/EC MRA also will reduce industry burdens and delays caused by
testing and approval requirements for products marketed in the United
States and Europe.
19. The US/EC MRA provides a 24 month transitional period that will
be used to implement the regulatory or legislative changes necessary
for both parties to implement the US/EC MRA. The period would begin on
the effective date of the MRA, which at this time is anticipated to be
July 1, 1998. At the end of this period the parties should be prepared
for full mutual recognition of product certifications and
registrations. The Commission tentatively concludes that legislative
changes will not be required for the United States to implement the US/
EC MRA with regard to telecommunications equipment and electromagnetic
compatibility. In this proceeding, the Commission proposes amendments
to its rules to commence regulatory implementation of the US/EC MRA.
Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concludes that it is
appropriate to issue specific proposals at this time to advance the
process as promptly as possible.
20. Designation of TCBs for equipment exported to the United States
from Europe. In accordance with the US/EC MRA, the United States and
each member state of the European Community will identify a
``Designating Authority'' in its territory. A Designating Authority is
a body with power to designate, monitor, suspend, remove suspension of
or withdraw conformity assessment bodies, such as TCBs, in accordance
with the US/EC MRA. Designating Authorities will in turn designate a
number of TCBs, also within each country's territory, that will be
empowered to certify products for conformity with the technical
requirements of countries to which the equipment is exported.
21. Designation of TCBs for equipment exported to Europe from the
United States. The US/EC MRA lists the Designating Authorities for the
United States as the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) and the Federal Communications Commission. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is also a designating authority for EMC aboard
aircraft. NIST will designate Conformity Assessment Bodies in the
United States for equipment that will be exported to Europe through its
National Voluntary Conformity Assessment System Evaluation (NVCASE)
program. NIST will oversee the United States Conformity Assessment
Bodies on an ongoing basis to ensure that they are performing in a
satisfactory manner. The Commission believes it is unnecessary for it
to play a direct role in designating or supervising TCBs with respect
to equipment going to Europe. However, the Commission will provide
assistance and guidance to NIST as may be necessary. For example, if
questions arise as to the performance of a United States-based
Conformity Assessment Body, the Commission would make its expertise in
testing and measurements available as needed to resolve such matters.
Comments are invited on this general approach.
22. Administration of the US/EC MRA. The US/EC MRA provides for
oversight of implementation by a Joint Sectorial Committee (``JSC'').
The Agreement provides that Commission representatives will participate
as appropriate in the Joint Committee, and will chair the JSCs for the
United States with regard to telecommunications equipment and
electromagnetic compatibility sectors. The Commission invites comments
on this general approach to administration and oversight of the US/EC
MRA.
23. The Commission notes that the JSC for telecommunications
equipment and EMC will produce a guidance document confronting these
and other, more detailed issues relevant to bilateral implementation of
this Agreement. The Commission seeks comment, however, recommending and
discussing specific additions and modifications to its rules that will
support and amplify both the Commission's and the JSC's efforts to
ensure that all products introduced into the United States' marketplace
remain in conformity with its rules.
24. Authority to approve equipment. The Commission proposes
amending its rules as required to permit parties in MRA partner
economies to certify radio frequency devices for conformance with parts
2, 15, 18 and other rule parts and to test, and eventually register
telecommunications equipment for conformance with part 68. The
Commission tentatively concludes that these privileges should only be
granted subject to the terms and conditions specified in the US/EC MRA.
Specifically, the Commission notes that both the United States and its
MRA partners retain the right to remove noncompliant equipment and
impose penalties for marketing noncompliant equipment as provided under
the applicable domestic law. The Commission solicits comments on this
general approach and invites suggestions as to any specific or
additional steps that may be necessary or appropriate to transition its
procedures and ensure continued compliance with the Commission's rules.
25. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) MRA. The Office of the
United States Trade Representative, at the request of the United States
telecommunication industry, is negotiating an MRA for Conformity
Assessment for Telecommunication products in the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC). APEC is a trade cooperative of eighteen economies,
soon to be expanded to twenty-one economies, along the Pacific Rim. The
APEC Telecom MRA is intended to facilitate trade in telecommunications
and radio equipment among the APEC economies.
26. The key elements of the APEC Telecom MRA text are likely to be
substantially similar to the key elements of the US/EC MRA text. A copy
of the text of the draft APEC Telecom MRA will be placed in the record
of this proceeding. The Commission tentatively concludes that the rules
proposed in this proceeding to implement the US/EC MRA may be
sufficient to implement the APEC Telecom MRA. The
[[Page 31689]]
Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion, and requests
comment identifying further rule changes that may be required to
implement the APEC Telecom MRA.
27. The GMPCS-MoU and Arangments. The Commission recognizes, that
certain GMPCS systems are now in operation or expected to commence
operation before it can adopt final rules in the final GMPCS
implementation proceeding. The Commission believes it must allow for
the expedient certification of GMPCS equipment as soon as possible to
remove a potential barrier to the success of the service. Accordingly,
the Commission will immediately begin to certify, on an interim basis,
GMPCS equipment that meets all the acceptable regulations under parts
1, 2, and 25 of its rules and a stringent out-of-band emission
standard.
28. There is currently no requirement in the Commission's rules to
obtain an equipment certification for a GMPCS terminal before it can be
used or marketed. However, it is evident that the truly global,
ubiquitous nature of GMPCS service delivery can be ensured only when
the user has the capability of transporting the GMPCS terminal across
national territories without delay or fees.
29. To date, the Commission has issued mobile earth terminal
authorizations to GMPCS service providers under a ``blanket license.''
These authorizations specify general operating parameters for a
specific number of terminals and specific requirements for the
protection of radiocommunication services, consistent with Sec. 1.1307,
and Secs. 25.135(b) and (c), 25.136(a) and (b), 25.202(a)(3),
25.202(a)(4), 25.202(d), 25.202(f), and 25.213(a)(1) and 25.213(b) of
the Commission's rules. The Commission also indicated that, when
applicable, licensees must meet any spurious emission restrictions
established by the Commission in order to protect the Russian Global
Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) which is operating in bands
adjacent to those used by some GMPCS terminals.
30. Since granting certain blanket licenses for some MSS systems
which fall under the GMPCS umbrella, certain international and domestic
organizations have proposed additional requirements for protecting
radionavigation systems, beyond those included for Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) in section 25.213 of the rules, concerning both
suppression of emissions below 1610 MHz and preventing harmful
interference from Big LEO systems operating in the adjacent 1610-1626.5
MHz band. First, the International Telecommunication Union's Radio
Sector Study Group WP 8D has adopted a recommended standard for
suppression of spurious emissions for MSS systems with mobile earth
terminals operating in the 1610-1626.5 MHz band and will soon consider
setting similar standards for other types of GMPCs terminals. The
European Commission/CEPT adopted a European Testing and Standards
Institute (ETSI) standard late last year for both CDMA and TDMA-type
Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) systems based on this ITU-R
recommendation.
31. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) proposed yet another set of standards to protect GPS and GLONASS
as part of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). In September
1997, the NTIA petitioned the Commission to begin a rulemaking to amend
part 25 of the FCC's rules to incorporate additional limits to protect
GNSS equipment operating within the 1559-1605 MHz radionavigation
satellite service band. The NTIA recommended that, for MSS mobile earth
terminals operating in the 1610-1660.5 MHz band, out-of-band signals
must ultimately be limited to -70 dBW/MHz for wide band emissions and
-80 dBW/700 Hz for narrow band emissions in the 1559-1605 range. The
Commission will initiate a separate rule making to consider the NTIA
proposal.
32. Authorization of GMPCS transmitters. The Commission intends to
allow GMPCS equipment to be voluntarily submitted for certification, on
an interim basis, upon meeting all of the relevant part 1 and 25
standards concerning frequency range, tolerance, out-of-band emission,
spurious emission limits to protect GPS, and radiation hazards.
Concerning the Commission's pending proceeding on additional protection
standards for GNSS, it will be conditioning this interim approval for
GMPCS terminal equipment operating in the band 1610-1626.5 MHz on the
ability of the applicant to meet the strictest out-of-band emission
limit proposed at this time, specifically, NTIA's out-of-band emission
limit proposed for implementation by the year 2005. NTIA proposes an
out-of-band emission limit of -70 dBW/MHz averaged over any 20 ms
period for wide band emissions occurring between 1559-1605 MHz and -80
dBW/700 Hz for narrow band emissions occurring between 1559-1605 MHz.
However, the NTIA's proposed limit on narrowband emissions specifies a
measurement bandwidth of 700 Hz. As there is some question whether
current instrumentation is capable of measuring across 700 Hz, it will
suffice for purposes of interim type approval for manufacturers to
demonstrate compliance with the narrowband standard of -80 dBW across
700 Hz or less in accordance with the RTCA Inc. Final Report in the
context of GPS protection requirements.
33. Finally, MSS satellite operators, service providers and mobile
earth terminal manufacturers are advised that all final FCC equipment
approvals will be conditioned on meeting the requirements and
procedures adopted in the future GMPCS MoU implementation proceeding,
including the specific spurious and out-of-band emission limits adopted
in that proceeding.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
34. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA),1 the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in
this NPRM.2 Written public comments are requested on this
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines for comments on this NPRM. The Office of Public
Affairs, Reference Operations Division, will send a copy of the NPRM,
including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the NPRM and
IRFA will be published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has
been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996,
Public Law No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996 (SBREFA).
\2\ 1998 Biennial Review--Amendment of parts 2, 25 and 68 of the
Commission's Rules to Further Streamline the Equipment Authorization
Process for Radio Frequency and Telephone Terminal Equipment and to
Implement Mutual Recognition Agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
35. The Commission is proposing to amend parts 2, 25 and 68 of the
rules to provide the option of private sector approval of equipment
that currently requires an approval by the Commission. We are also
proposing rule changes to implement a Mutual Recognition Agreement
(MRA) for product approvals with the European Community (EC) and to
allow for similar agreements with other foreign trade parties. These
actions would eliminate the need for manufacturers to wait for approval
from the Commission
[[Page 31690]]
before marketing equipment in the United States, thereby reducing the
time needed to bring a product to market. We are also proposing an
interim procedure to issue equipment approvals for Global Mobile
Personal Communication for Satellite (GMPCS) terminals prior to
domestic implementation of the GMPCS-MOU Arrangements.3
4 That action would benefit manufacturers of GMPCS terminals
by allowing greater worldwide acceptance of their products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ''Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite''
(GMPCS) service is defined in the 1996 Final Report of the World
Telecommunications Policy Forum as: ``any satellite system, (i.e.,
fixed or mobile, broadband or narrow-band, global or regional,
geostationary or non-geostationary, existing or planned) providing
telecommunication services directly to end users from a
constellation of satellites.''
\4\ The GMPCS MOU and Arrangements are intended to allow the
worldwide transport and use of GMPCS equipment. They are described
in more detail in the Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Legal Basis
36. The proposed action is authorized under 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. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r),
304 and 307.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
37. Under the RFA, small entities may include small organizations,
small businesses, and small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C.
601(6). The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601(3), generally defines the term ``small
business'' as having the same meaning as the term ``small business
concern'' under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. A small business
concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(``SBA''). This standard also applies in determining whether an entity
is a small business for purposes of the RFA.
38. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to RF Equipment Manufacturers. Therefore, the applicable
definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules
applicable to manufacturers or ``Radio and Television Broadcasting and
Communications Equipment.'' According to the SBA's regulation, an RF
manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a
small business.5 Census Bureau data indicates that there are
858 companies in the United States that manufacture radio and
television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of
these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be classified as
small entities.6 We believe that many of the companies that
manufacture RF equipment may qualify as small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Code 3663.
\6\ See U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of
Transportation, Communications and Utilities (issued may 1995), SIC
category 3663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. The Commission has not developed a definition of small
manufacturers of telephone terminal equipment. The closest applicable
definition under SBA rules is for manufacturers of telephone and
telegraph apparatus (SIC 3661), which defines a small manufacturer as
one having 1,000 or fewer employees.7 According to 1992
Census Bureau data, there were 479 such manufacturers, and of those,
436 had 999 or fewer employees, and 7 had been between 1,000 and 1,499
employees.8 We estimate that there fewer than 443 small
manufacturers of terminal equipment that may be affected by the
proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 13 CFR 121.201, SIC 3661.
\8\ 1992 Economic Census, Industry and Employment Size of Firm,
Table 1D (data prepared by U.S. Census Bureau under contract to the
U.S. Small Business Administration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
40. We are proposing to allow designated Telecommunication
Certification Bodies (TCBs) in the United States to issue equipment
approvals. Applicants for equipment authorization may apply either to
the FCC or to a TCB, and they will be required to submit the same
application form and exhibits that the rules currently require. We are
also proposing to carry out a mutual recognition agreement with the
European Community that will permit certain equipment currently
required to be authorized by the FCC to be authorized instead by TCBs
in Europe. As with TCBs in the United States, applicants would be
required to submit the same application form and exhibits they do now.
We are proposing that TCBs submit a copy of each approved application
to the FCC. Applications for equipment authorization under part 2 of
the rules will be sent and stored electronically using the new OET
electronic filing system. Paper copies of part 68 applications will be
required, since there is not yet an electronic filing system for those
applications. However, we are requesting comments on alternatives to
these proposals.
We are also proposing to require equipment authorization for mobile
transmitters used in the Global Mobile Personal Communications by
Satellite (GMPCS) service. This will require manufacturers to file an
application and technical exhibits to the FCC or a designated TCB and
wait for an approval before the equipment can be marketed. While this
action would impose a new authorization requirement, it should
ultimately reduce the burden on manufacturers. Under the terms of the
GMPCS MOU and Arrangements, the single approval obtained in the United
States could eliminate the need to obtain approvals from multiple other
countries.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
41. Certain equipment that uses radio frequencies must be approved
by the Commission before it can be marketed. Allowing parties other
than the Commission to certify equipment would provide manufacturers
with alternatives where they could possibly obtain certification faster
than available from the Commission. Further, by providing for other
product certifiers, manufacturers would have the option of obtaining
certification from a facility in a more convenient location. An
additional benefit of allowing other parties to certify equipment would
be a reduction in the number of applications filed with the Commission.
This would enable us to redirect resources to enforcement of the rules.
Finally, allowing equipment to be certified by parties located in other
countries is an essential and necessary step for concluding mutual
recognition agreements. Therefore, we are proposing to allow private
organizations to certify equipment as an alternative to certification
by the Commission.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
42. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2, 25, and 68
Communications equipment, Report and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15396 Filed 6-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P