[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