*Pages 1--58 from  Microsoft Word - 16529*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 In  the  Matter  of  )  ) 
 1998  Biennial  Regulatory  Review  --  )  Amendment  of  Parts  2,  25  and  68  of  the  ) 
 Commission's  Rules  to  Further  Streamline  )  the  Equipment  Authorization  Process  for  )  GEN  Docket  No.  98-  68 
 Radio  Frequency  Equipment,  Modify  the  )  Equipment  Authorization  Process  for  ) 
 Telephone  Terminal  Equipment,  Implement  )  Mutual  Recognition  Agreements  and  Begin  ) 
 Implementation  of  the  Global  Mobile  Personal  )  Communications  by  Satellite  (GMPCS)  ) 
 Arrangements  ) 


 REPORT  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  December  17,  1998  Released:  December  23,  1998 


 By  the  Commission:  Commissioner  Furchtgott-  Roth  issuing  a  statement. 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  By  this  action,  we  amend  Parts  0,  2,  15,  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  adopting  rule  changes  to  implement  Mutual  Recognition  Agreements  and  Arrangements  (MRAs)  for  product  approvals  with  the  European  Community  (EC),  the  Asia  Pacific  Economic 
 Cooperation  (APEC)  and  with  other  foreign  trade  partners.  1  These  actions  will  eliminate  the  need  for  foreign  and  domestic  manufacturers  to  obtain  approval  from  the  Commission  before  marketing 
 equipment  in  the  United  States,  thereby  reducing  the  time  needed  to  bring  a  product  to  market.  We  also  adopt  an  interim  procedure  to  issue  equipment  approvals  for  Global  Mobile  Personal 
 Communication  by  Satellite  (GMPCS)  terminals  prior  to  domestic  implementation  of  the  GMPCS- 


 1  The  US-  EC  document  is  called  a  "Mutual  Recognition  Agreement",  while  the  APEC  document  is  called  a  "Mutual 
 Recognition  Arrangement".  We  will  use  the  abbreviation  "MRA"  for  both  documents. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 2 
 MoU  Arrangements  (GMPCS  Arrangements).  2  This  action  will  benefit  manufacturers  of  GMPCS  terminals  by  allowing  greater  worldwide  acceptance  of  GMPCS-  related  equipment.  The  full 
 implementation  of  the  GMPCS  Arrangements  will  be  the  subject  of  a  future  proceeding  in  early  1999. 


 II.  BACKGROUND 
 A.  Legal  Framework 
 2.  Section  302  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  authorizes  the  Commission  to  make  reasonable  regulations,  consistent  with  the  public  interest,  governing  the  interference 
 potential  of  equipment  that  emits  radio  frequency  energy.  3  The  purpose  of  this  provision  is  to  ensure  that  radio  transmitters  and  other  electronic  devices  meet  certain  standards  before  they  reach  the 
 market  to  control  interference  to  radio  services.  The  Commission  carries  out  its  responsibilities  under  Section  302  in  two  ways.  First,  the  Commission  establishes  technical  regulations  for 
 transmitters  and  other  equipment  to  minimize  their  potential  for  causing  interference  to  radio  services.  Second,  the  Commission  administers  an  authorization  program  to  ensure  that  equipment 
 reaching  the  market  complies  with  the  technical  requirements.  The  authorization  program  requires  that  equipment  be  tested  either  by  the  manufacturer  or  at  a  private  test  laboratory  to  ensure  that  it 
 complies  with  the  technical  requirements.  For  a  large  number  of  devices,  once  the  equipment  has  been  tested  and  found  to  comply,  it  may  be  marketed  without  any  approval  from  the  Commission. 
 However,  for  equipment  which  the  Commission  has  determined  may  pose  a  greater  risk  of  interference,  the  Commission  requires  the  submission  of  an  application  which  must  be  reviewed  and 
 approved  before  the  equipment  can  be  marketed.  The  Commission  may  also  request  a  sample  of  a  device  to  confirm  it  complies  with  our  standards. 


 3.  Part  68  of  the  Commission's  rules  applies  to  terminal  equipment  connected  to  the  telecommunications  network.  4  Part  68  was  enacted  more  than  two  decades  ago  to  facilitate 


 2  "Global  Mobile  Personal  Communications  by  Satellite"  or  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."  The  GMPCS  -  MoU  arrangements  are  intended  to  allow  the  worldwide  transport  and  use  of  GMPCS  equipment.  They  are  described  in  more  detail  later  in  this  Order. 


 3  See  47  U.  S.  C.    302(  a). 
 4  See  47  C.  F.  R.    68.1. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 3 
 competition  in  the  telecommunications  equipment  industry  and  to  expand  the  options  available  to  telecommunications  customers  for  the  connection  of  customer  premises  equipment  and  wiring  to  the 
 telecommunications  network.  Through  Part  68,  the  Commission  has  standardized  the  interfaces  between  customer  premises  equipment  and  the  public  switched  telecommunications  network  while 
 protecting  the  telecommunications  network  from  harm  that  might  be  caused  by  the  connection  of  telecommunications  terminal  equipment.  The  potential  harms  addressed  by  Part  68  include 
 electrical  hazards  to  telephone  company  personnel  and  equipment,  the  degradation  of  telecommunications  services  to  third  parties,  and  malfunctioning  of  billing  equipment.  In  addition, 
 Part  68  rules  ensure  that  persons  with  hearing  aids  are  afforded  reasonable  access  to  the  telecommunications  network.  5  Before  equipment  may  be  imported  to  the  United  States  or  connected 
 to  the  public  switched  telecommunications  network  ("  PSTN"),  it  must  be  registered  in  accordance  with  Part  68.  6  The  Part  68  registration  program  requires  that  terminal  equipment  be  tested  for 
 compliance  either  by  the  manufacturer  or  a  competent  test  laboratory,  and  proof  of  compliance,  in  the  form  of  an  application,  test  procedures,  and  test  results  must  be  submitted  to  the  Commission  for 
 approval  and  a  grant  of  registration. 
 4.  During  the  first  International  Telecommunication  Union  (ITU)  World  Telecommunication  Policy  Forum  held  in  1996  in  Geneva,  satellite  operators,  service  providers  and 
 international  regulators  stressed  the  need  to  facilitate  the  free  circulation  of  GMPCS  terminals  to  ensure  that  customers  could  access  GMPCS  services  on  a  real-  time,  ubiquitous  basis.  Parties  at  the 
 Forum  agreed  to  a  draft  Memorandum  of  Understanding  (MoU)  designed  to  facilitate  the  free  circulation  of  GMPCS  user  terminals.  The  draft  MoU  was  finalized  in  February  1997.  Interested 
 parties  and  signatories  assembled  in  the  spring  of  1997  to  sign  the  MoU  and  to  begin  drafting  five  specific  arrangements  concerning  the  licensing,  type  approval,  marking,  provision  of  traffic  data  and 
 customs  treatment  of  GMPCS  terminals.  The  GMPCS-  MoU  Arrangements  were  completed  in  October  1997. 


 5.  Today,  over  100  Administrations  and  private  sector  entities  have  signed  the  MoU.  The  ITU  Council  has  approved  the  use  of  the  "GMPCS-  MoU  ITU  REGISTRY"  mark  for  placement  on 
 terminals  which  have  been  duly  registered  in  the  ITU  database.  This  globally-  recognized  mark  will  be  placed  on  GMPCS  terminals  to  signify  they  have  been  type-  approved  by  at  least  one 
 Administration  and  that  the  actual  licensing,  type  approval,  and  marking  "requirements"  noted  in  the  GMPCS-  MoU  Arrangements  have  been  duly  registered  with  the  ITU.  The  Commission,  on  behalf 


 5  Id. 
 6  See  Form  730  Application  Guide,  Registration  of  Telephone  and  Data  Terminal  Equipment,  Approved  by  OMB  3060-  0056, 
 Exp.  3/  31/  2000,  FCC,  Rev  C-  276,  Nov.  1997,  and  see  19  U.  S.  C.    3101  "Telecommunications  Trade  Act  of  1988"  Pub.  L.  100-  418,  Title  I    1372,  Aug.  23,  1988,  102  Stat.  1216. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 4 
 of  the  United  States  government,  is  now  responsible  for  implementing  fully  the  GMPCS-  MoU  Arrangements  consistent  with  its  regulatory  authority. 
 B.  History  of  Proceeding 
 6.  The  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  ("  Notice")  in  this  docket  7  proposed  to  amend  Parts  2,  25  and  68  of  the  rules  to  1)  allow  private  sector  entities  in  the  United  States  to  issue  equipment 
 authorizations;  2)  allow  entities  in  foreign  countries  which  are  party  to  an  MRA  to  issue  equipment  approvals;  and  3)  provide  for  the  interim  authorization  of  GMPCS  mobile  terminals  prior  to 
 implementation  of  the  GMPCS  Arrangements. 
 7.  In  the  Notice,  we  designated  this  proceeding  as  part  of  our  1998  biennial  review  of  regulations  pursuant  to  Section  11  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended.  8  Section  11 
 requires  us  to  review  all  of  our  regulations  applicable  to  providers  of  telecommunication  services  and  determine  whether  any  rule  is  no  longer  in  the  public  interest  as  the  result  of  meaningful 
 economic  competition  between  providers  of  telecommunications  service.  9  As  part  of  our  biennial  review,  we  stated  that  our  goal  in  this  proceeding  was,  among  other  things,  to  empower  private 
 entities  to  perform  many  of  the  conformity  assessment  activities  that  the  Commission  currently  performs  with  respect  to  terminal  equipment  connected  to  the  public  switched  telecommunications 
 network.  10  Accordingly,  we  proposed  in  the  Notice  to  revise  our  regulations  to  allow  private  entities  to  perform  these  activities  as  the  first  step  in  the  streamlining  of  the  Part  68  program  generally. 


 8.  A  total  of  36  parties  filed  comments,  and  17  filed  reply  comments  in  this  proceeding.  With  some  exceptions,  the  parties  were  generally  supportive  of  the  Commission's  proposals.  A  list 
 of  parties  submitting  comments  is  contained  in  Appendix  B. 


 III.  DISCUSSION 
 9.  In  this  order,  we  adopt  measures  to  reduce  the  burden  of  the  equipment  authorization  program  on  manufacturers,  ensure  market  access  and  promote  competition  in  the  provision  of 


 7  See  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  in  GEN  Docket  98-  68  ,  13  FCC  Rcd  10683. 
 8  See  47  U.  S.  C.    161. 
 9  Id. 
 10  See  Notice  at  para.  2. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 5 
 telecommunication  and  electronic  equipment,  and  allow  greater  worldwide  acceptance  of  GMPCS  equipment.  In  the  following  discussion,  we  address  the  comments  filed  in  response  to  our  proposals 
 to  recognize  private  entities  to  certify  equipment  as  complying  with  Commission  rules.  The  program  we  adopt  will  be  used  both  to  streamline  our  domestic  equipment  approval  programs  and 
 satisfy  the  United  States'  obligations  to  implement  MRAs. 
 A.  Telecommunications  Certification  Bodies  (TCBs) 
 10.  In  the  Notice,  we  proposed  to  allow  designated  private  entities  to  issue  equipment  approvals  in  essentially  the  same  manner  as  the  Commission.  11  Under  this  proposal,  private  entities 
 in  the  U.  S.  and  designated  entities  in  other  countries  would  certify  that  equipment  intended  for  use  within  the  U.  S.  complies  with  Commission  requirements.  We  proposed  that  these  certifying 
 organizations  be  called  "Telecommunication  Certification  Bodies",  or  TCBs,  since  their  purpose  will  be  to  grant  certification  to  telecommunications  equipment.  This  approach  would  provide 
 manufacturers  with  alternatives  where  they  could  possibly  obtain  certification  faster  than  with  the  Commission  and  from  a  facility  in  a  more  convenient  location.  We  also  anticipated  that  the  TCB 
 program  would  result  in  a  reduction  of  applications  filed  with  the  Commission,  thus  enabling  the  Commission  to  redirect  resources  toward  enforcement  of  the  rules.  Finally,  allowing  equipment  to 
 be  certified  by  parties  in  other  countries  is  an  essential  step  in  implementing  MRAs,  and  using  private  entities  for  domestic  certification  purposes  would  parallel  our  MRA  obligations. 


 11.  While  the  comments  generally  support  establishing  a  TCB  program,  several  parties  express  concerns  about  the  proposal.  Cisco  states  that  the  Commission  should  expand  the 
 Declaration  of  Conformity  (DoC)  12  program  instead,  particularly  to  non-  radio  terminal  equipment  subject  to  Part  68.  13  Cisco  states  that  this  equipment  does  not  pose  a  risk  of  interference  or  radio 
 frequency  exposure,  and  the  DoC  program  largely  eliminates  compliance-  related  delays  in  bringing  products  to  market.  14  Mobile  Engineering  opposes  having  private  entities  perform  Part  68  testing, 


 11  See  Notice  at  para.  11.  Section  302(  e)  of  the  Communications  Act,  47  U.  S.  C.    302(  e),  allows  the  Commission  to  use 
 private  entities  for  testing  and  certifying  equipment. 


 12  Declaration  of  Conformity  (DoC)  is  a  self-  approval  procedure  applicable  to  equipment  which  has  a  relatively  low  risk 
 of  causing  interference.  It  requires  the  manufacturer  or  importer  to  test  the  equipment  to  determine  compliance  with  the  FCC  standards.  The  laboratory  performing  the  measurements  must  be  accredited  by  either  the  National  Institute  of 


 Standards  and  Technology  (NIST)  or  the  American  Association  for  Laboratory  Accreditation  (A2LA).  A  compliance  information  statement,  listing  the  party  responsible  for  compliance,  must  be  supplied  with  the  product. 


 13  See  Cisco  comments  at  4-  7. 
 14  See  Cisco  comments  at  5-  6. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 6 
 arguing  that  the  current  system  is  fair  and  impartial  and  that  the  Commission's  proposal  will  increase  costs  to  test  labs  and  TCBs  due  to  accreditation  requirements.  15  ITI  states  that  the  Commission 
 should  give  higher  priority  to  expanding  the  DoC  program  for  more  product  types,  because  prior  approval  of  products  is  not  necessary  for  the  success  of  an  authorization  program  and  typically 
 creates  significant  delays  in  the  product  introduction  cycle.  16  SEA  believes  that  the  Commission's  proposal  will  result  in  increased  cost  to  manufacturers  and  slower  processing  of  applications, 
 because  TCBs  will  want  to  retest  all  equipment  they  certify,  even  if  the  manufacturer  has  already  tested  it.  17  Bell  Atlantic  believes  that  allowing  foreign  entities  to  authorize  equipment  may 
 introduce  partiality  into  the  authorization  process.  18 
 12.  In  ET  Docket  97-  94,  we  recently  examined  the  Part  2  authorization  program,  relaxing  the  authorization  requirements  for  many  types  of  equipment  to  permit  manufacturer's  self-  approval 
 (verification  or  DoC).  19  We  estimate  that  our  actions  in  Docket  97-  94  will  reduce  by  approximately  half  the  number  of  applications  required  to  be  filed  with  us.  The  equipment  for  which  we  relaxed 
 the  authorization  requirement  includes  receivers,  which  is  the  only  type  of  equipment  that  ITI  suggested  be  placed  under  the  DoC  program.  20  We  determined  in  Docket  97-  94  that  a  certain  "core 
 group"  of  equipment  requires  a  higher  level  of  oversight  than  manufacturer's  self-  approval,  due  to  a  high  risk  of  non-  compliance,  the  potential  to  create  significant  interference  to  safety  and  other 
 communication  services,  and  the  need  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  requirements  to  protect  against  radio  frequency  exposure.  Neither  ITI  nor  any  other  commenter  provides  any  new  information  that 
 would  lead  us  to  change  our  determination.  Accordingly,  we  decline  to  expand  further  the  DoC  program  for  equipment  subject  to  a  Part  2  authorization  requirement  at  this  time. 


 15  See  Mobile  Engineering  comments  at  2-  3. 
 16  See  ITI  comments  at  3-  4. 
 17  See  SEA  comments  at  4-  6. 
 18  See  Bell  Atlantic  reply  comments  at  2. 
 19  See  Report  and  Order  in  ET  Docket  No.  97-  94,  13  FCC  Rcd  11415  (1998).  Verification  is  also  a  self-  approval  procedure, 
 but  unlike  the  DoC  procedure  does  not  require  the  use  of  an  accredited  test  laboratory  or  a  compliance  statement  to  be  supplied  with  the  equipment. 


 20  Scanning  receivers  are  the  only  type  of  receiver  that  require  certification  by  the  Commission.  Scanning  receivers 
 have  exhibited  significant  compliance  problems  in  the  past. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 7 
 13.  Since  the  Notice  did  not  propose  to  place  terminal  equipment  subject  to  the  Part  68  registration  program  under  DoC,  as  Cisco  suggests,  the  record  does  not  yet  contain  sufficient 
 information  or  analysis  to  ensure  that  it  would  be  fair  and  equitable  to  do  so.  Accordingly,  we  decline  to  expand  further  the  DoC  program  to  equipment  subject  to  Part  68  registration  at  this  time. 
 We  may,  however,  consider  this  possibility  in  the  context  of  future  proceedings  where  we  may  more  fully  investigate  and  resolve  the  relevant  issues. 


 14.  By  carefully  specifying  the  qualification  criteria  for  TCBs,  as  well  as  exerting  the  proper  oversight,  we  intend  to  ensure  the  TCB  system  will  be  as  fair  and  impartial  as  the  current  system. 
 The  TCB  system  also  may  be  significantly  faster  than  the  Commission's  current  system,  since  manufacturers  should  have  more  than  one  approval  body  to  choose  from  and  can  select  one  with  a 
 shorter  processing  time.  We  expect  TCBs  to  function  much  like  the  Commission  by  certifying  a  product  based  on  the  test  results  of  one  representative  sample.  Further,  competition  among  TCBs,  as 
 well  as  expectations  of  manufacturers,  should  encourage  TCBs  to  process  applications  quickly  and  at  reasonable  expense.  TCBs  should  provide  conveniently  located  expertise  and  "one  stop 
 shopping"  for  manufacturers,  thereby  eliminating  the  uncertainty  and  delay  in  assembling  and  forwarding  applications  to  the  Commission  inherent  in  the  current  system.  We  also  recognize  and 
 agree  with  commenters  21  that  the  integrity  of  the  TCB  program  must  be  based  on  our  ability  to  enforce  our  rules  effectively.  As  we  stated  in  the  Notice,  we  intend  to  redirect  resources  toward 
 enforcement  of  the  rules.  Further,  we  intend  to  review  and  revise  our  rules  and  procedures,  as  necessary,  to  ensure  that  we  fulfill  our  responsibilities  to  ensure  credible  rule  enforcement.  We 
 recognize  that  there  will  be  initial  start-  up  problems  and  we  plan  to  work  with  industry  and  the  National  Institute  of  Standards  and  Technology  (NIST)  22  to  facilitate  the  training  and 
 implementation  of  TCBs.  Accordingly,  we  find  it  is  in  the  public  interest  to  adopt  the  TCB  system  as  proposed  in  the  Notice,  for  equipment  authorized  under  both  Parts  2  and  68  of  our  rules. 


 TCB  Qualification  criteria 
 15.  In  the  Notice,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  the  International  Organization  for  Standardization  (ISO)  /  International  Electrotechnical  Commission  (IEC)  Guide  65  (1996),  General 
 requirements  for  bodies  operating  product  certification  systems  ("  Guide  65"),  sets  forth  the  requirements  that  must  be  used  to  establish  the  primary  qualification  criteria  for  TCBs.  23  TCB 


 21  See,  e.  g,  ACIL  comments  at  9-  11;  CCL  comments  at  6;  ITS  comments  at  9-  10. 
 22  NIST  will  be  involved  in  the  accreditation  of  TCBs,  as  discussed  below. 
 23  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65  is  available  through  the  American  National  Standards  Institute,  Customer  Service,  11  West  42nd 
 Street,  New  York,  NY  -  10036,  telephone  212-  642-  4900,  facsimile  212-  302-  1286,  or  e-  mail  to  jrichard@  ansi.  org.  This  document  is  also  available  through  national  standards  organizations  around  the  world. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 8 
 equipment  certification  would  be  based  on  type  testing,  which  is  the  option  listed  in  subclause  1.2(  a)  of  Guide  65.  24  We  also  proposed  that  TCBs: 
 Demonstrate  expert  knowledge  of  the  regulations  for  each  product  with  respect  to  which  the  body  seeks  designation,  including  knowledge  of  all  applicable  technical  regulations,  administrative 
 provisions  or  requirements,  as  well  as  the  relevant  policies  and  procedures.  25  Be  accredited  in  accordance  with  ISO/  IEC  Guide  25,  General  Requirements  for  the  Competence  of 
 Calibration  and  Testing  Laboratories  ("  Guide  25"),  in  order  to  demonstrate  that  they  are  competent  to  perform  testing  of  the  products  they  will  certify.  26 
 Have  the  ability  to  recognize  when  interpretations  of  the  rules  or  test  procedures  are  necessary  and  demonstrate  a  knowledge  of  how  to  obtain  current  and  correct  interpretations.  27 
 Participate  in  consultative  activities  identified  by  the  Commission  to  establish  a  common  understanding  and  interpretation  of  the  regulations.  28 


 16.  The  comments  were  highly  supportive  of  making  Guide  65  the  primary  qualification  criteria  for  TCBs.  Several  commenters  indicate,  however,  that  Guide  65  should  be  applied  in  its 
 entirety  to  promote  acceptance  of  TCBs  both  domestically  and  internationally.  29  There  also  was 


 24  Clause  1.2  of  Guide  65  provides  five  options  for  determining  the  compliance  of  a  product  with  the  applicable 
 requirements.  The  Commission's  current  certification  system  is  based  on  type  testing,  which  means  testing  a  representative  sample  of  a  device  to  determine  if  it  complies  with  the  technical  requirements. 


 25  See  Notice  at  para.  13. 
 26  Id.  ISO/  IEC  Guide  25  is  available  through  the  American  National  Standards  Institute,  Customer  Service,  11  West  42nd 
 Street,  New  York,  NY  -  10036,  telephone  212-  642-  4900,  facsimile  212-  302-  1286,  or  e-  mail  to  jrichard@  ansi.  org.  This  document  is  also  available  through  national  standards  organizations  around  the  world. 


 27  See  Notice  at  para.  13. 
 28  Id. 
 29  See  ACIL  comments  at  2,  CCL  comments  at  2,  Compliance  comments  at  1,  Intertek  comments  at  2,  and  TIA  comments 
 at  3. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 9 
 support  for  requiring  TCBs  to  be  Guide  25  accredited  30  and  for  the  other  additional  qualifications  criteria  that  we  proposed.  31 
 17.  We  find  that  Guide  65,  an  existing  international  standard,  establishes  appropriate  qualifications  for  product  certifiers.  32  Guide  65  will  be  used  as  the  primary  qualification  criteria  for 
 TCBs  under  MRAs,  so  use  of  this  document  for  domestic  purposes  as  well  will  facilitate  acceptance  of  U.  S.  certifications  internationally,  and  thereby  promote  U.  S.  trade  abroad.  We  also  find  that 
 TCBs  should  have  the  expertise  and  capability  to  test  equipment  they  certify,  since  they  will  either  perform  measurements  themselves  or  will  use  this  expertise  and  capability  to  correctly  review  test 
 data  from  other  parties  and  perform  audit  testing  as  required.  Thus,  we  also  find  that  TCBs  must  be  accredited  to  Guide  25  to  demonstrate  appropriate  knowledge  and  capability  to  perform  product 
 testing.  Accordingly,  we  require  TCBs  to  be  both  Guide  65  and  25  accredited. 
 18.  CCL  requests  that  the  Commission  recognize  current  accreditation  schemes  for  testing  laboratories,  such  as  the  National  Voluntary  Laboratory  Accreditation  Program  (NVLAP)  and  the 
 American  Association  for  Laboratory  Accreditation  (A2LA).  33  Laboratories  that  perform  testing  of  equipment  approved  under  DoC  must  be  accredited  through  NVLAP,  A2LA  or  other  parties 
 recognized  by  the  Commission.  34  These  accreditations  are  based  on  Guide  25  and  cover  testing  of  certain  devices  subject  to  Part  15  of  the  rules.  35  We  find  that  these  accreditations  would  satisfy  our 
 requirement  for  a  TCB  to  be  Guide  25  accredited.  Accordingly,  a  prospective  TCB  which  is  already  accredited  by  A2LA,  NVLAP  or  another  recognized  party,  based  on  Guide  25,  will  not  have  to 
 obtain  another  Guide  25  accreditation,  provided  the  equipment  it  certifies  is  covered  by  the  scope  of  the  accreditation. 


 30  See  ACIL  comments  at  2,  CCL  comments  at  3,  DLS  comments  at  4,  Intertek  comments  at  3,  and  Retlif  comments  at  3. 
 31  See  ACIL  comments  at  2,  CCL  comments  at  2,  ICS  comments  at  2,  ITS  comments  at  3,  Metricom  comments  at  4  and 
 Retlif  comments  at  4. 


 32  For  example,  Guide  65  requires  that  product  certifiers  be  impartial,  responsible  for  their  decisions,  have  a  quality 
 system,  have  personnel  with  the  appropriate  knowledge  and  experience,  document  the  certification  system,  maintain  records  of  approvals,  conduct  internal  audits,  and  perform  post-  market  surveillance.  See  Notice  at  para.  12. 


 33  See  CCL  comments  at  3. 
 34  See  47  C.  F.  R.    2.948(  d). 
 35  See  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  15. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 10 
 19.  We  also  adopt  the  additional  qualification  criteria  that  we  proposed,  i.  e.,  TCBs  must  demonstrate  expert  knowledge  of  the  regulations  for  each  product  with  respect  to  which  they  seek 
 designation;  recognize  when  interpretations  of  the  rules  or  test  procedures  are  necessary  and  demonstrate  knowledge  of  how  to  obtain  current  and  correct  interpretations;  and  participate  in 
 consultative  activities  identified  by  the  Commission  to  establish  a  common  understanding  and  interpretation  of  the  regulations.  The  MRAs,  for  example,  identify  regulations  and  requirements  that 
 are  applicable  to  certifying  equipment  intended  for  import  into  the  United  States.  36  Since  such  regulations  and  requirements  may  be  modified  in  the  future,  we  delegate  authority  to  the  Chief, 
 Office  of  Engineering  and  Technology  (OET),  and  to  the  Chief,  Common  Carrier  Bureau  (CCB),  to  identify  specific  regulations  and  requirements  for  which  TCBs  certifying  equipment  for  use  within 
 the  United  States  shall  demonstrate  expert  knowledge.  Both  OET  and  CCB  shall  provide  public  notice  of  the  specific  regulations  and  requirements  identified  for  this  purpose,  to  ensure  that 
 prospective  TCBs  will  know  for  which  specific  regulations  and  requirements  they  must  demonstrate  expert  knowledge  as  required  under  our  qualifying  criteria. 


 20.  Subcontractors.  Several  parties  address  the  issue  of  whether  subcontractors  to  TCBs  (e.  g.,  test  laboratories)  should  also  be  Guide  25  accredited.  Acme,  DLS,  ICS  and  Retlif  believe  that 
 subcontractors  should  be  Guide  25  accredited.  37  TIA  believes  that  test  labs  should  have  a  24  month  grandfathering  period  before  they  should  be  Guide  25  accredited.  38  Motorola  and  Redcom  both 
 believe  that  manufacturers'  labs  should  be  allowed  to  continue  testing  without  Guide  25  accreditation.  39 


 21.  Under  Guide  65,  a  TCB  may  use  a  subcontractor  to  perform  certain  tasks  (e.  g.,  testing  or  inspection).  40  Guide  65  further  states  that  a  TCB  shall  take  full  responsibility  for  subcontracted 
 work,  and  shall  "ensure  that  the  subcontracted  body  or  person  is  competent  and  complies  with  the 
 36  The  US/  EC  MRA  contains  a  non-  exclusive  list  for  telecommunications  equipment.  The  model  APEC  MRA  provides  that 
 countries  will  identify  the  relevant  regulations  and  requirements  at  the  time  they  enter  into  bilateral  agreements. 


 37  See  Acme  comments  at  2,  DLS  comments  at  4,  ICS  comments  at  2,  and  Retlif  comments  at  4. 


 38  See  TIA  comments  at  3. 
 39  See  Motorola  comments  at  7-  9,  and  Redcom  comments  at  2. 
 40  See  Guide  65,  clause  4.4.  Although  a  TCB  might  use  a  subcontractor  to  perform  certain  tasks  related  to  the 
 certification  process,  a  TCB  is  precluded  by  Guide  65  from  delegating  to  a  third  party,  such  as  a  subcontractor,  any  authority  for  granting  certifications.  See  Guide  65,  clauses  4.4(  a)  and  12.2. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 11 
 applicable  provisions  of  [Guide  65]  and  other  standards  and  guides  relevant  to  testing,  inspection  or  other  technical  activities."  41  Thus,  TCBs  must  ensure  that  subcontractors,  which  perform  their  work 
 under  the  direction  of,  and  generally  with  compensation  from,  the  TCB,  are  competent  and  in  compliance.  We  do  not  interpret  Guide  65  as  requiring  subcontractors  to  be  Guide  25  accredited. 
 We  expect  that  as  a  result  of  our  requirement  that  TCBs  must  be  accredited  to  Guides  65  and  25,  TCBs  will  have  the  expertise  to  determine  whether  a  manufacturer  or  independent  laboratory  that  is 
 a  subcontractor  is  competent  to  correctly  measure  the  equipment  being  tested.  We  will  allow  TCBs  to  use  any  reasonable  means,  including  requiring  Guide  25  accreditation,  to  determine  whether  a 
 subcontractor  is  competent  and  in  compliance  with  relevant  standards  or  guidelines. 
 22.  Manufacturers.  Retlif,  Rockwell  and  Kenwood  request  that  the  Commission  confirm  that  a  manufacturer  can  be  a  TCB,  provided  it  meets  the  Guide  65  requirement  for  impartiality.  42 
 ACIL,  CCL  and  Intertek  want  the  Commission  to  provide  a  clear  definition  of  "independence"  for  TCBs,  and  propose  a  definition  based  on  the  language  in  European  Directives,  43  which  would 
 exclude  manufacturers  from  being  TCBs. 
 23.  Guide  65  clearly  requires  that  the  certifying  body  be  impartial.  More  specifically,  clause  4.2  of  Guide  65  requires  that  the  certifying  body  "not  supply  or  design  products  of  the  type  it 
 certifies,"  nor  "provide  any  product  or  service  which  could  compromise  the  confidentiality,  objectivity  or  impartiality  of  the  certification  process  and  decisions."  44  We  interpret  these  guidelines 
 to  effectively  preclude  manufacturers  from  becoming  TCBs.  Thus,  we  do  not  find  it  necessary  to  adopt  a  specific  definition  of  independence  in  order  to  preclude  manufacturers  from  TCB 
 designation.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  Guide  65  less  restrictive  regarding  subcontractors.  Clause  4.4  of  Guide  65  states  that  the  certifying  body  is  to  ensure  that  the  subcontractor  "is  not  involved 
 either  directly  or  through  the  person's  employer  with  the  design  or  production  of  the  product  in  such  a  way  that  impartiality  would  be  compromised."  45  Thus,  manufacturers  satisfying  the  conditions  of 
 clause  4.4  of  Guide  65  could  be  used  as  subcontractors,  provided  the  TCB  is  satisfied  that  its  own  impartiality  would  not  be  compromised.  Since  the  TCB  is  the  party  whose  impartiality  must  be 
 maintained,  the  TCB  is  in  the  best  position  to  determine  whether  the  use  of  a  particular  subcontractor 


 41  See  Guide  65,  clause  4.4(  a)  &  (b). 
 42  See  Retlif  comments  at  3,  Rockwell  comments  at  2,  and  Kenwood  reply  comments  at  3. 
 43  See  ACIL  comments  at  3,  CCL  comments  at  2,  and  Intertek  comments  at  4. 
 44  See  Guide  65,  clause  4.2(  a)  &  (o). 
 45  See  Guide  65,  clause  4.4(  b). 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 12 
 would  in  any  way  jeopardize  that  requirement.  We  expect,  nonetheless,  that  a  manufacturer  would  not  be  used  as  a  subcontractor  to  test  its  own  products  or  similar  products  made  by  a  competing 
 manufacturer. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 13 
 Designation  Procedure 
 24.  The  Notice  proposed  that  TCBs  be  accredited  by  NIST  under  its  National  Voluntary  Conformity  Assessment  System  Evaluation  (NVCASE)  program.  46  We  proposed  that  NIST  would 
 perform  an  assessment  in  accordance  with  the  standards  in  ISO/  IEC  Guide  61  47  to  determine  if  the  TCB  complies  with  Guide  65.  The  comments  generally  support  having  NIST  perform  Guide  65 
 accreditation,  but  ACIL,  Acme,  CCL,  ICS,  Intertek  and  TIA  argue  that  additional  bodies  be  allowed  to  perform  accreditations.  48  Retlif  wants  only  NIST  to  accredit  during  the  transition  period  for  MRA 
 implementation,  since  U.  S.  government  involvement  will  help  strengthen  the  program's  international  acceptance.  49  ANSI  does  not  believe  that  NIST  can  accredit  to  Guide  65,  and  offers  its  own 
 accreditation  program  as  an  alternative  to  NIST.  50  NIST  agrees  that  it  can  either  accredit  bodies  directly,  or  recognize  accreditors  who  would  then  perform  the  actual  accreditations.  51 


 25.  In  accordance  with  our  proposal,  we  designate  NIST  as  the  entity  with  primary  responsibility  for  accrediting  TCBs.  NIST  may  directly  accredit  TCBs  or  may,  in  consultation  with 
 the  Commission,  designate  additional  accreditation  bodies  who  will,  in  turn,  accredit  TCBs.  We  will  work  directly  with  NIST  to  develop  the  many  administrative  details  of  the  criteria  and  processes  for 
 accreditation  of  TCBs.  The  Commission  will  identify  for  NIST,  for  example,  the  specific  types  of  tests  that  need  to  be  done  for  telecommunications  equipment  and  the  types  of  measurements  that 
 should  be  done  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  our  rules;  identify  processes  that  TCBs  will  use  to  obtain  current  and  correct  interpretations  of  rules  or  test  procedures;  and  identify  consultative 
 activities  requiring  TCB  participation.  The  Commission  will  provide  public  notice  of  the  methods  that  NIST  will  use  to  accredit  TCBs  consistent  with  the  qualification  criteria  adopted  herein. 


 46  See  Notice  at  para.  14. 
 47  ISO/  IEC  Guide  61  (1996)  General  requirements  for  Assessment  and  Accreditation  of  Certification/  Registration  Body 
 assessment  and  Accreditation  Systems  -  -  General  Requirements  for  Operation. 


 48  See  ACIL  comments  at  3,  Acme  comments  at  2,  CCL  comments  at  3,  ICS  comments  at  2,  Intertek  comments  at  3,  and 
 TIA  comments  at  4. 


 49  See  Retlif  comments  at  4. 


 50  See  ANSI  comments  at  2. 
 51  See  NIST  comments  at  1. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 14 
 26.  As  proposed  in  the  Notice,  we  will  designate  as  a  TCB  any  organization  that  meets  the  qualification  criteria  and  is  accredited  by  NIST  or  its  recognized  accreditor.  52  An  organization  may 
 seek  accreditation  and  designation  as  a  TCB  for  all  or  only  some  equipment  requiring  authorization  under  Parts  2  and  68.  The  Commission  will  issue  a  public  notice  listing  each  accredited  entity  that  it 
 designates  as  a  TCB  and  maintain  a  current  list  of  all  designated  TCBs.  We  will  not  limit  the  number  of  TCBs  that  will  be  designated,  nor  will  we  limit  the  time  period  during  which  an 
 organization  must  be  accredited  and  designated.  We  will  not  require  periodic  renewals  of  a  TCB  designation,  but  we  note  that  under  international  standards,  accreditations  are  only  valid  for  a 
 specific  number  of  years.  The  Commission  will  withdraw  the  designation  of  a  TCB  if  the  TCB's  accreditation  by  NIST  or  its  recognized  accreditor  is  withdrawn  or  expires,  if  the  Commission 
 otherwise  determines  there  is  just  cause  for  withdrawing  the  designation,  or  if  the  TCB  requests  that  it  no  longer  hold  the  designation.  The  Commission  will  provide  a  TCB  with  30  days  notice  of  its 
 intention  to  withdraw  TCB  designation  and  provide  the  TCB  with  an  opportunity  to  respond.  Withdrawal  of  designation  will  be  announced  by  public  notice. 


 27.  There  are  many  details  of  the  qualification  and  accreditation  process  that  remain  to  be  worked  out  between  the  Commission  and  NIST.  Therefore,  we  delegate  authority  to  the  Chief,  OET 
 and  the  Chief,  CCB  to  identify  the  specific  methods  that  will  be  used  by  NIST  to  accredit  TCBs,  consistent  with  the  qualification  criteria  adopted  herein,  and  to  enter  into  a  memorandum  of 
 understanding  with  NIST  on  the  accreditation  process  for  TCBs.  We  also  delegate  authority  to  the  Chief,  OET  and  the  Chief,  CCB  to  designate  and  withdraw  the  designation  of  TCBs,  consistent  with 
 the  terms  of  this  Report  and  Order. 
 Implementation  Matters 
 28.  In  the  Notice,  we  proposed  to  allow  TCBs  to  certify  equipment  under  Parts  2  and  68  of  our  rules,  performing  the  same  application  processing  functions  as  used  by  the  Commission.  In 
 particular,  the  following  requirements  were  proposed  for  TCBs.  53 
 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.  54 
 b)  TCBs  will  be  required  to  issue  a  written  grant  of  certification. 


 52  See  Notice  at  para.  15. 
 53  See  Notice  at  para.  17. 
 54  The  application  form  for  equipment  authorized  under  Part  2  is  FCC  Form  731,  and  the  application  form  for  equipment 
 authorized  under  Part  68  is  FCC  Form  730.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.1103  and  1.1105. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 15 
 c)  The  grantee  of  certification  will  remain  the  party  responsible  to  the  Commission  for  compliance  of  the  product. 
 d)  The  type  testing  as  defined  in  Guide  65  should  normally  be  done  on  only  one  unmodified  sample  of  the  equipment  for  which  approval  is  sought. 
 e)  There  is  no  restriction  on  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  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)  TCBs  must  submit  an  electronic  copy  of  each  granted  application  to  the  Commission  using  the  new  electronic  filing  system  for  equipment  authorization  applications.  This  will  allow  us 
 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  us  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)  TCBs  must  periodically  perform  audits  of  equipment  on  the  market  that  they  have  certified 
 to  ensure  continued  compliance. 
 29.  In  the  Notice,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  some  functions  not  be  performed  by  TCBs  but,  rather,  by  the  Commission.  In  particular,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  TCBs  not  grant  waivers 
 of  Commission  rules  and  regulations;  not  certify  new  or  unique  equipment  for  which  Commission  rules  or  requirements  do  not  exist  or  for  which  application  of  the  rules  or  requirements  is  not  clear; 
 not  take  enforcement  action  but  rather  report  rule  violations  to  the  Commission;  and  not  grant  transfers  of  control  or  assignments  of  certifications.  55  Finally,  we  proposed  that  any  action  of  a  TCB 
 be  subject  to  review  by  the  Commission.  56 


 55  See  Notice  at  para.  18. 
 56  Id. 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 16 
 30.  Commenters  were  generally  supportive  of  the  implementation  requirements.  Some  specific  concerns  were  expressed,  and  we  discuss  those  concerns  below.  In  light  of  the  comments, 
 we  adopt  these  requirements  as  modified  and  clarified  below. 
 31.  Scope  of  responsibility.  ACIL,  CCL,  DLS  and  Intertek  urge  the  Commission  to  give  TCBs  the  fullest  authority  possible.  57  Most  commenters  support  the  Commission's  proposals  that 
 only  the  Commission  grant  waivers  of  rules  and  take  enforcement  actions.  58  PCTEST  does  not  believe  that  TCBs  should  be  allowed  to  certify  products  that  require  routine  environmental 
 evaluation  for  RF  exposure,  since  there  are  few  laboratories  with  experience  in  the  testing,  and  the  test  procedures  are  still  under  development.  59 


 32.  Consistent  with  section  302(  e)  of  the  Communications  Act,  as  well  as  the  terms  of  the  MRAs,  we  will  use  TCBs  to  test  and  certify  equipment  as  complying  with  our  technical  rules  and 
 requirements.  Under  this  authority,  TCBs  are  to  certify  equipment  in  accordance  with  Commission  rules  and  policies.  It  is  important  that  applicants  are  treated  fairly  and  equitably  regardless  of  where 
 their  equipment  is  certified,  since  a  certification  granted  by  a  TCB  will  be  treated  the  same  as  one  issued  by  the  Commission.  In  that  regard,  should  equipment  manufacturers  take  issue  with  a  TCB's 
 decision,  they  may  seek  Commission  review  of  such  decision.  Thus,  TCBs  are  not  to  impose  their  own  requirements,  and  must  conform  their  testing  and  certification  processes  and  procedures  to 
 comply  with  any  changes  the  Commission  makes  in  its  rules  and  requirements.  We  recognize  that  changes  to  the  Commission's  technical  rules  may  require  TCBs  to  be  re-  accredited  in  order  to 
 continue  to  be  qualified  to  test  and  certify  certain  equipment.  Finally,  we  anticipate  that  TCBs  will  test  and  certify  a  broad  range  of  equipment,  and  we  do  not  intend  to  preclude  TCBs  from  certifying 
 any  class  of  equipment  at  this  time,  as  PCTEST  suggests.  We  would,  however,  only  designate  a  TCB  to  test  and  certify  equipment  requiring  routine  evaluation  for  RF  exposure  if  it  demonstrates 
 that  it  has  the  appropriate  knowledge  and  expertise.  Any  concerns  that  TCBs  may  have  about  specific  test  procedures  for  RF  exposure  will  be  addressed  by  the  Office  of  Engineering  and 
 Technology  during  the  TCB  program  implementation. 
 33.  Although  we  intend  to  use  TCBs  to  certify  a  broad  range  of  equipment,  we  find  that  certain  functions  regarding  certifying  equipment  should  continue  to  be  performed  by  the 
 Commission.  Specifically,  TCBs  will  not  be  permitted  to  waive  the  rules,  nor  to  certify  new  or  unique  equipment  for  which  Commission  rules  or  requirements  do  not  exist  or  for  which  application 


 57  See  ACIL  comments  at  6-  7,  CCL  comments  at  4,  DLS  comments  at  4,  and  Intertek  comments  at  6-  7. 
 58  See  ACIL  comments  at  6,  CCL  comments  at  4,  Intertek  comments  at  6,  Retlif  comments  at  5  and  TIA  comments  at  7. 
 59  See  PCTEST  reply  comments  at  3. 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 17 
 of  the  rules  or  requirements  is  not  clear.  The  Commission  in  the  first  instance  will  determine  whether  and  under  what  conditions  rules  may  be  waived,  and  provide  interpretations  of  novel  issues 
 concerning  the  Commission's  technical  standards,  testing  requirements  or  certification  procedures.  We  expect  that  in  many  instances  the  Commission's  decisions  can  provide  adequate  guidance  to 
 TCBs  to  allow  them  to  certify  equipment  that  is  similarly  situated.  In  some  instances,  the  Commission  may  have  to  develop  new  rules.  We  find  that  by  reserving  for  the  Commission  all 
 waiver  requests  and  new  and  novel  rule  applications  and  interpretations,  we  can  ensure  that  all  TCBs  will  certify  equipment  in  a  uniform  manner,  consistent  with  Commission  policies. 


 34.  We  also  conclude  that  TCBs  should  not  take  any  enforcement  actions,  but  rather  report  apparent  violations  of  rules  to  the  Commission.  Enforcement  actions  that  the  Commission  may 
 undertake  include,  for  example,  revocation  of  an  authorization  and  imposing  a  fine  and  forfeiture.  Neither  Section  302(  e)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  60  nor  the  MRAs 
 contemplate  using  TCBs  as  enforcement  agents.  Moreover,  the  Commission  has  specific  statutory  obligations  that  it  must  satisfy  in  this  area.  61 


 35.  ACIL,  Intertek  and  TIA  state  that  the  Commission  should  allow  TCBs  to  authorize  transfers  of  control,  since  that  is  a  simple  procedure  for  Part  68  applications.  62  We  will  not  permit 
 TCBs  to  authorize  transfers  of  control  of  Part  2  grants  of  certification,  however,  because  the  Commission's  rule  on  these  transfers  requires  that  we  make  a  determination  on  a  case-  by-  case  basis 
 as  to  whether  new  equipment  authorization  applications  are  required.  63  We  will  continue  to  perform  that  function  to  ensure  that  the  rule  is  applied  in  a  consistent  manner.  We  determine,  however,  that 
 TCBs  may  authorize  transfers  of  Part  68  certifications.  Commission  approval  of  such  transfers  is  not  required,  although  the  Commission  requires  notification  of  such  transfers.  64  We  intend  to 
 develop  an  electronic  filing  system  to  accommodate  Part  68.  We  expect  that  the  electronic  filing  system  will  permit  TCBs  to  notify  the  Commission  of  transfers  of  control.  In  the  interim,  we  will 


 60  See  47  U.  S.  C.  section  302(  a). 
 61  See,  e.  g.,  Title  V  of  the  Communications  Act. 
 62  See  ACIL  comments  at  6-  7,  Intertek  comments  at  7,  and  TIA  comments  at  7. 
 63  See  47  C.  F.  R.    2.929(  d). 
 64  See  47  C.  F.  R.    68.214(  b). 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 18 
 accept  Part  68  transfers  of  control  by  utilizing  the  same  means  of  communication  we  employ  during  the  TCB  program  implementation  period.  65 
 36.  Written  grant  of  certification.  Several  parties  would  like  the  Commission  to  ensure  that  grants  issued  by  TCBs  are  exactly  equivalent  to  grants  issued  by  the  FCC.  ACIL,  Intertek  and  TIA 
 suggest  that  TCB-  issued  grants  indicate  that  the  TCB  is  FCC  designated,  and  that  the  FCC  publish  the  list  of  TCBs  under  its  letterhead.  66  Motorola  and  PCTEST  recommend  that  the  FCC  standardize 
 the  format  of  TCB  grants.  67  We  find  that  the  first  two  suggestions  have  merit.  We  believe  the  success  of  the  TCB  program  will  depend  in  part  on  our  ensuring  that  TCB  certifications  are  truly 
 equivalent  to  those  issued  by  the  Commission.  Accordingly,  we  will  require  a  TCB  grant  to  indicate  that  the  TCB  is  designated  to  grant  the  certification,  citing  the  source  of  authority  (e.  g.,  the  rules  that 
 we  are  adopting  in  this  Report  and  Order).  We  will  not  require  a  specific  format  for  TCB  grants,  but  the  certification  must  include  the  same  information  as  contained  in  one  issued  by  the  Commission. 
 We  will  make  samples  of  the  Commission's  format  available  to  TCBs  that  wish  to  follow  it. 
 37.  Consistent  with  the  Commission's  rules,  68  a  TCB  may  set  aside  a  grant  on  its  own  motion  within  30  days  of  the  effective  date  of  the  grant  in  the  event  of  administrative  errors,  e.  g.,  the 
 application  was  not  complete.  The  TCB  will  be  required  to  provide  notice  of  such  action  to  the  applicant  and  to  the  Commission.  After  the  30  day  period,  only  the  Commission  may  revoke  a  grant 
 if,  for  example,  we  discover  misrepresentations  in  the  application  or  failure  of  the  equipment  to  conform  to  the  applicable  technical  standards.  69 


 38.  Unmodified  sample  for  type  testing.  Curtis-  Strauss  requests  clarification  on  what  constitutes  an  "unmodified"  sample  for  testing.  70  Curtis-  Strauss  points  out  that  manufacturers  often 


 65  We  will  accept  FCC  form  730  for  transfer  of  control  purposes  until  we  have  developed  and  implemented  an 
 electronic  filing  system  for  Part  68.  We  may  utilize  interim  filing  procedures  as  necessary  during  the  development  and  implementation  of  the  electronic  filing  system.  We  will  provide  public  notice  of  any  changes  in  our  filing  procedures. 


 66  See  ACIL  comments  at  4,  Intertek  comments  at  5,  and  TIA  comments  at  5-  6. 
 67  See  Motorola  comments  at  5,  and  PCTEST  reply  comments  at  6. 
 68  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.108. 
 69  See  47  C.  F.  R.    2.939(  a). 
 70  See  Curtis-  Strauss  comments  at  1-  2. 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 19 
 apply  for  certification  during  product  development,  and  product  modifications  are  often  needed  for  compliance.  71  In  proposing  this  requirement,  we  intended  that  TCBs  use  the  same  standards  that  we 
 currently  use  in  certifying  equipment  (i.  e.,  the  sample  of  the  equipment  for  which  certification  is  being  obtained  must  be  representative  of  what  will  actually  be  marketed).  In  the  event  modifications 
 to  a  sample  are  required  during  compliance  testing  72  to  make  a  product  comply  with  the  standards,  those  modifications  must  be  incorporated  into  the  finished  marketed  product.  73 


 39.  Test  data.  Some  commenters  express  concern  that  TCBs  will  not  accept  test  data  from  manufacturers  or  independent  labs,  preferring  instead  to  conduct  compliance  testing  themselves. 
 SEA  is  concerned  that  TCBs  will  have  an  incentive  to  conduct  compliance  testing  themselves  in  order  to  demonstrate  their  impartiality  and,  as  a  result,  manufacturers'  costs  and  time  to  market  will 
 increase.  74  TIA  asks  that  we  clarify  whether  "subcontractor"  includes  an  applicant's  own  test  lab.  75  Although  it  recognizes  that  a  TCB  will  want  a  manufacturer  to  demonstrate  a  basis  for  confidence  in 
 the  manufacturer's  test  procedures  and  results,  Motorola  suggests  that  TCBs  provide  public  notice  of  the  criteria  they  will  use  to  determine  whether  they  will  accept  test  data  from  a  manufacturer.  76 
 ACIL  recommends  that  ISO  Guide  25  accreditation  serve  as  the  basis  for  accepting  test  data.  77 
 40.  Under  the  Commission's  current  certification  process,  manufacturers  and  independent  laboratories  may  test  products  and  submit  applications  to  the  Commission  for  certification.  Under 
 the  TCB  system  we  are  adopting,  manufacturers  and  independent  labs  may  continue  to  test  products  as  they  do  now,  except  applications  can  be  submitted  to  a  TCB  rather  than  the  Commission.  78  Thus, 
 a  manufacturer  or  a  test  lab  does  not  have  to  be  a  subcontractor  in  order  to  test  products  and  submit 
 71  Id. 


 72  "Compliance  testing"  and  "type  testing"  mean  the  same  thing. 
 73  See  47  C.  F.  R.    2.907(  b)  (equipment  marketed  by  a  grantee  must  be  identical  to  the  sample  tested). 
 74  See  SEA  comments  at  5-  6. 
 75  See  TIA  comments  at  6. 
 76  See  Motorola  comments  at  9. 
 77  See  ACIL  comments  at  2. 
 78  A  TCB  is  required  to  make  its  services  available  to  all  applicants.  See  clause  4.1.2  of  Guide  65. 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 20 
 applications  to  a  TCB.  We  agree  with  Motorola  that  a  TCB  will  want  a  manufacturer  to  demonstrate  a  basis  for  confidence  in  the  manufacturer's  test  procedures  and  results.  Consistent  with  our  decision 
 regarding  subcontractor's  competence,  a  TCB  can  establish  confidence  in  a  manufacturer's  or  independent  lab's  test  results  by  any  reasonable  means,  but  we  will  not  require  accreditation  of  the 
 test  lab  under  Guide  25.  We  expect  that  a  TCB  will  examine  a  test  report  for  completeness  of  data  and  documentation;  notify  applicants  in  writing  of  any  deficiencies  in  the  test  report;  request 
 additional  information  to  address  the  deficiencies;  and  not  retest  or  duplicate  testing  for  minor  equipment  changes  that  do  not  affect  compliance  with  technical  requirements.  Our  oversight  of 
 TCBs  should  identify  any  abusive  practices  concerning  the  acceptance  of  test  data. 
 41.  Common  Database  of  Certified  Equipment.  ACIL,  CCL,  Intertek  and  TIA  request  that  the  Commission  establish  a  standard  format  for  the  information  submitted  for  inclusion  in  the 
 database  to  be  maintained  by  the  Commission.  79  ACIL  provides  a  list  of  the  information  it  believes  is  necessary  to  include  in  the  database.  80  TIA  requests  that  the  Commission  work  with  industry  to 
 develop  the  common  database.  81 
 42.  We  conclude  that  it  is  necessary  to  maintain  a  common  database  of  certified  equipment  by  having  all  TCBs  send  an  electronic  copy  of  each  granted  application,  including  the  certification 
 the  TCB  issued,  to  the  Commission  using  the  electronic  filing  system  for  Part  2  applications.  As  we  explained  in  the  Notice,  a  common  database  will  allow  the  Commission  to  verify  whether  a  piece  of 
 equipment  was  approved  without  having  to  locate  the  TCB  that  approved  it  and  obtaining  their  records;  to  monitor  the  activities  of  TCBs  to  determine  how  many  approvals  are  issued  and  for  what 
 types  of  equipment;  and  to  provide  one  location  which  all  parties  can  use  to  verify  approvals  and  obtain  copies  of  applications.  However,  requiring  submission  of  a  copy  of  the  complete  application 
 to  the  database,  including  all  the  photographs,  user  manuals  and  test  reports  would  be  an  unnecessary  burden  on  TCBs.  We  will  only  require  submission  of  the  application  Form  731  and  an 
 electronic  copy  of  the  TCB's  grant  of  equipment  authorization.  In  the  event  we  need  additional  information  about  a  particular  piece  of  equipment,  we  can  obtain  it  from  the  TCB.  We  are  amending 
 our  rules  to  require  TCBs  to  provide  a  copy  of  the  application  file  within  30  days  of  a  request  by  the  Commission,  or  to  provide  an  explanation  as  to  why  the  file  can  not  be  provided.  Where 
 appropriate,  the  TCB  will  provide  a  copy  of  any  request  for  confidentiality  for  any  material  in  the 


 79  See  ACIL  comments  at  5,  CCL  comments  at  8,  Intertek  comments  at  10,  and  TIA  comments  at  6. 
 80  See  ACIL  comments  at  5-  6.  ACIL  recommended  that  the  information  submitted  include  the  application  form, 
 photographs  of  the  equipment,  and  a  copy  of  the  test  results. 


 81  See  TIA  comments  at  6. 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 21 
 application  file  that  qualifies  as  trade  secrets,  to  ensure  appropriate  handling.  82  OET  will  notify  TCBs  of  the  specific  information  it  will  need  about  a  TCB  grant  and  in  what  electronic  format  it 
 should  be  provided. 
 43.  We  recognize  that  we  have  not  yet  developed  an  electronic  filing  system  to  accommodate  Part  68,  but  intend  to  do  so  in  the  future.  We  will  utilize  conventional  means  for 
 collecting  information  in  the  interim.  83  We  will  authorize  submission  of  Part  68  certification  information  into  a  common  database,  and  describe  the  information  that  must  be  filed  for  Part  68 
 purposes,  after  we  have  developed  an  electronic  filing  system  to  accommodate  that  information. 
 44.  Surveillance  Activities.  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65  requires  TCBs  to  perform  surveillance  on  products  they  have  approved.  84  It  does  not  specify  the  number  or  percentage  of  products  that  need  to 
 be  examined.  We  received  a  number  of  comments  on  this  issue.  Acme  and  Curtis-  Strauss  would  like  the  Commission  to  clarify  exactly  what  TCBs  are  required  to  do.  85  However,  many  parties 
 object  to  requiring  TCBs  to  perform  surveillance.  Cisco,  ITI,  Itron,  Motorola,  SEA  and  PCTEST  believe  that  surveillance  should  be  done  only  by  the  government,  primarily  because  they  view  audits 
 as  closely  aligned  with  enforcement  responsibility  which  they  argue  should  be  retained  by  the  Commission.  86  Cisco,  ITI,  Itron  and  PCTEST  are  concerned  about  a  possible  lack  of  impartiality  or 
 conflict  of  interest.  87  Cisco  also  is  concerned  that  a  TCB  may  determine  that  a  product  is  no  longer  in  compliance  with  a  certification  it  issued,  when  in  fact  the  manufacturer  used  another  TCB  to 


 82  Under  clause  4.10  of  Guide  65,  TCBs  are  to  safeguard  the  confidentiality  of  information  obtained  in  the  course  of  their 
 certification  activities,  but  they  may  disclose  the  information  as  required  by  law. 


 83  We  will  accept  FCC  form  730  during  the  development  and  implementation  of  the  electronic  filing  system. 


 84  See  Guide  65,  clause  13. 
 85  See  Acme  comments  at  1,  and  Curtis-  Strauss  comments  at  2. 
 86  See  Cisco  comments  at  9,  ITI  comments  at  6,  Itron  comments  at  2,  Motorola  comments  at  9-  10,  SEA  comments  at  8-  9, 
 and  PCTEST  reply  comments  at  4. 


 87  See  Cisco  comments  at  9-  10,  ITI  comments  at  6,  Itron  comments  at  2-  3,  and  PCTEST  reply  comments  at  4. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 22 
 certify  the  product  modification.  88  SEA  is  concerned  that  TCBs  will  have  to  charge  additional  fees  to  cover  the  cost  of  equipment  audits.  89 
 45.  The  Commission  will  continue  to  perform  its  own  surveillance  of  products  on  the  market,  by  periodically  conducting  random  product  testing  as  well  as  by  investigating  allegations  of 
 non-  compliance.  However,  we  find  that  surveillance  is  an  appropriate  activity  for  TCBs  to  supplement  the  Commission's  efforts.  Under  clause  13  of  Guide  65,  a  TCB  is  obligated  to  ensure 
 that  products  that  it  has  certified  continue  to  comply  with  Commission  requirements,  particularly  after  a  manufacturer  notifies  a  TCB  that  the  product  has  been  modified.  90  We  will  not  specify  a 
 specific  number  or  percentage  of  products  that  a  TCB  should  test  to  satisfy  this  guideline,  since  our  experience  has  shown  that  different  levels  of  scrutiny  are  required  for  different  products  to  ensure 
 compliance.  91  We  will  rely  on  TCBs  to  use  their  judgment  in  complying  with  this  guideline.  In  addition,  we  may  periodically  require  a  TCB  to  test  for  continued  compliance  certain  types  of 
 products  that  the  TCB  certified  and  which  are  already  being  marketed  (post-  market  surveillance).  We  do  not  view  post-  market  surveillance  by  TCBs  as  an  abdication  of  our  enforcement 
 responsibilities,  since  the  TCB  will  report  apparent  violations  to  the  Commission  and  not  take  action  on  its  own  against  the  manufacturer.  To  ensure  that  TCBs  conduct  audits  impartially,  the 
 Commission  will  devise  procedures  that  TCBs  will  use  for  post-  market  surveillance,  and  we  delegate  authority  to  the  Chief,  OET  and  the  Chief,  CCB  to  develop  procedures  that  TCBs  will  use 
 for  conducting  post-  market  surveillance.  These  procedures  will  address,  for  example,  conducting  field  audits  or  acquiring  samples  for  testing.  The  TCB  will  test  the  products  under  the  Commission 
 guidelines  and  report  the  results  to  us.  TCBs  will  be  able  to  check  the  Commission's  common  database,  described  above,  to  avoid  reporting  as  non-  compliant  products  that  actually  were 
 subsequently  re-  certified  by  another  TCB.  By  using  the  TCBs  to  conduct  audits,  the  Commission  will  be  able  to  secure  information  quickly  from  a  variety  of  sources  about  ongoing  compliance, 
 while  focusing  its  own  resources  on  investigating  specific  problem  cases.  Based  on  the  TCBs'  reports,  the  Commission  may  conduct  further  investigations  and  take  appropriate  enforcement  action 
 against  companies  found  to  be  marketing  non-  compliant  products.  As  stated  above,  the  Commission  will  also  continue  to  perform  post-  market  surveillance  in  cases  where  we  deem  it  warranted,  and  to 


 88  See  Cisco  comments  at  9-  10. 
 89  See  SEA  comments  at  8-  9. 
 90  See  Guide  65,  clause  13.2. 
 91  For  example,  low-  power,  unlicensed  transmitters  such  as  cordless  telephones  and  baby  monitors  have  frequently 
 been  a  source  of  compliance  problems  because  of  pressures  in  the  marketplace  to  build  them  as  cheaply  as  possible,  or  to  increase  their  operating  range  by  increasing  their  transmitter  power  above  the  legal  limit. 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 23 
 audit  the  performance  of  TCBs.  These  actions  will  help  ensure  that  TCBs  act  in  a  fair,  impartial  manner.  We  expect  that  TCBs  will  take  the  cost  of  post-  market  surveillance  into  account  when 
 setting  their  fees.  As  previously  stated,  we  are  not  regulating  the  fees  that  TCBs  charge,  but  we  expect  that  competitive  pressures  in  the  market  will  prevent  a  TCB  from  charging  excessive  fees. 


 46.  Consultative  Activities.  Several  parties  suggest  that  the  Commission  develop  a  joint  public-  private  sector  working  group  to  address  implementation  issues  as  they  arise.  Commenters 
 recommend  that  this  working  group  include  all  interested  parties,  such  as  TCBs,  test  labs  and  manufacturers.  92  We  refrain  from  establishing  a  new  formal  organization  at  this  time,  and  choose  to 
 rely  instead  on  existing  voluntary  industry  consensus  groups.  For  example,  for  Part  68  issues,  we  intend  to  continue  our  cooperative  association  with  TIA's  TR.  41  committees.  Moreover,  we  intend 
 to  work  with  all  interested  parties  to  implement  the  TCB  program  and  to  ensure  its  success. 
 Continued  Certification  by  the  Commission 
 47.  The  Notice  solicited  comments  on  whether  the  Commission  should  eventually  stop  certifying  equipment  once  TCBs  are  designated.  93  We  received  mixed  comments  on  this  issue. 
 ACIL,  CCL,  Compliance,  DLS,  ICS,  Intertek  and  TIA  state  that  the  Commission  should  cease  certifying  equipment  after  TCBs  are  designated.  94  However,  Cisco,  Curtis-  Strauss,  ITI,  Motorola 
 and  SEA  state  that  the  Commission  should  continue  to  certify  equipment.  95  Cisco  states  that  the  Commission  is  better  able  to  interpret  the  rules,  and  authorization  by  the  Commission  will  set  a 
 benchmark  for  quality  and  prices.  96  ITI  believes  that  having  the  Commission  continue  to  issue 


 92  See  ACIL  comments  at  7,  CCL  comments  at  4-  5,  ICS  comments  at  3,  Intertek  comments  at  7-  8,  Retlif  comments  at  4, 
 and  TIA  comments  at  7-  8. 


 93  See  Notice  at  para.  20. 


 94  See  ACIL  comments  at  8,  CCL  comments  at  5,  Compliance  comments  at  2,  DLS  comments  at  4,  ICS  comments  at  3, 
 Intertek  comments  at  8,  and  TIA  comments  at  8. 


 95  See  Cisco  comments  at  10,  Curtis-  Strauss  comments  at  2,  ITI  comments  at  4-  5,  Motorola  comments  at  5,  and  SEA 
 comments  at  9-  10. 


 96  See  Cisco  comments  at  10-  11. 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 24 
 authorizations  will  help  limit  fees  charged  by  TCBs.  97  Motorola  believes  continued  Commission  certification  is  necessary  to  satisfy  foreign  governments  that  may  require  an  FCC  approval.  98 
 48.  Our  goal  in  this  proceeding  is  to  discontinue  granting  routine,  non-  controversial  applications  under  Parts  2  and  68  of  our  rules  when  TCBs  are  available  to  perform  the  work,  but  we 
 do  not  at  this  time  set  a  date  when  the  Commission  will  cease  to  issue  authorizations.  We  conclude  that  the  Commission  should  continue  approving  equipment,  including  processing  routine 
 applications,  during  the  implementation  of  the  TCB  program.  This  will  help  smooth  the  transition  to  the  new  system  and  ensure  that  at  least  one  organization  is  available  to  certify  all  types  of 
 equipment.  After  we  have  some  experience  with  the  new  system,  we  will  assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  TCB  program  and  determine  when  the  Commission  should  discontinue  approving  products. 
 After  the  TCB  program  is  initiated,  however,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  be  the  authorizing  body  if  no  TCB  is  available  to  authorize  a  given  type  of  equipment  and  to  process  applications 
 raising  novel  issues  regarding  application  of  our  rules. 
 49.  We  conclude  that  it  is  unnecessary  for  the  Commission  to  continue  approving  certification  applications  for  personal  computers  and  peripherals,  since  that  equipment  can  be 
 authorized  through  the  DoC  procedure.  99  We  find  that  processing  these  voluntarily  filed  applications  is  not  an  efficient  use  of  the  Commission's  resources.  Accordingly,  once  domestic 
 TCBs  are  available  to  process  applications  for  personal  computer  equipment  for  those  applicants  who  choose  to  use  the  certification  process  rather  than  DoC,  the  Commission  will  stop  accepting 
 these  applications  a  reasonable  time  thereafter.  The  Commission  will  announce  by  public  notice  when  it  will  cease  to  accept  these  applications.  We  amend  Section  15.101  of  the  rules  to  reflect  this 
 change. 
 Implementation  Dates  and  Transition  Periods 
 50.  In  the  Notice,  we  proposed  that  a  transition  period  of  24  months  elapse  before  any  TCBs  would  be  allowed  to  certify  equipment.  100  This  time  period  was  proposed  because  it  is  similar  to  the 


 97  See  ITI  comments  at  4. 
 98  See  Motorola  comments  at  5. 
 99  Personal  computers  and  peripherals  can  be  authorized  through  the  DoC  procedure,  but  manufacturers  also  have  the 
 option  of  obtaining  certification  from  the  Commission.  In  the  quarter  that  ended  in  September  1998,  the  Commission  received  342  applications  for  this  equipment,  which  was  approximately  one-  third  of  all  applications  received  during  that  time  period. 


 100  See  Notice  at  para.  19. 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 25 
 provision  of  the  US/  EC  MRA,  which  specifies  a  24  month  transition  period  after  the  MRA  effective  date,  so  that  countries  have  time  to  modify  requirements  and  procedures  to  meet  the  MRA's 
 obligations.  Some  commenters  suggest  that  a  transition  period  be  no  more  than  24  months,  and  perhaps  less.  101  Upon  further  consideration,  we  do  not  find  it  necessary  to  delay  the  introduction  of 
 the  TCB  system  for  a  24  month  period,  and  we  would  rather  implement  the  TCB  system  as  soon  as  practicable.  Nonetheless,  we  cannot  implement  the  TCB  system  immediately  because  of  a  number 
 of  tasks  which  need  to  be  completed  first.  For  example,  we  need  to  specify  the  documentation  necessary  to  meet  the  qualification  criteria  for  TCBs,  as  discussed  above,  and  we  need  to  develop 
 with  NIST  the  accreditation  and  designation  procedures.  Although  we  will  immediately  begin  taking  the  necessary  steps  to  implement  the  TCB  system,  we  recognize  that  it  is  difficult  to  specify  a 
 fixed  date  when  TCBs  will  begin  to  certify  equipment.  We  also  conclude  that  a  fixed  date  would  not  serve  the  ongoing  accreditation  and  implementation  processes.  For  example,  TCBs  may  be 
 identified  readily  for  some  equipment,  but  not  for  others,  accreditation  compliance  dates  may  vary,  and  TCBs  can  enter  and  exit  the  system  at  different  times.  Thus,  we  conclude  that  we  will  authorize 
 the  use  of  TCBs  as  they  are  designated  by  the  Chief,  OET  and  the  Chief,  CCB  in  a  public  notice. 
 Part  68  Issues 
 51.  Terminology.  In  the  Notice,  we  discussed  the  use  of  the  terms  "certification"  and  "registration"  as  they  apply  to  the  Part  68  program.  102  Commenters  suggest  that  the  two  terms  are 
 functional  equivalents,  and  recommend  that  we  expand  our  use  of  the  term  "certification"  to  include  our  Part  68  program.  103  Commenters  point  out  that  such  usage  would  be  consistent  with  various 
 other  parts  of  the  Federal  Register,  the  norms  of  international  terminology,  and  specifically  the  language  of  the  MRAs.  104  We  agree  with  commenters  that  the  use  of  common  terminology  benefit 
 clarity  and  consistency,  and  determine  that  the  terms  "registration"  and  "certification"  are  equivalent  for  the  purposes  of  our  Part  68  rules.  To  the  extent  practicable,  we  will  implement  this  change  in  the 
 course  of  future  rule  makings  and  administrative  actions  affecting  Part  68. 
 52.  FCC  Form  730.  The  Part  68  program  currently  utilizes  FCC  Form  730  to  transmit  information  from  test  labs  and  manufacturers  to  the  Commission.  In  the  Notice,  we  sought  comment 
 on  whether  we  could  utilize  that  form  to  transmit  test  data  to  the  Commission  from  TCB  candidates 


 101  See  ACIL  comments  at  7,  ITS  comments  at  8,  and  TIA  comments  at  8. 


 102  See  Notice  at  para.  21-  24. 
 103  ACIL  comments  at  8;  CCL  comments  at  5;  ICS  comments  at  4;  ITC  comments  at  9;  TIA  comments  at  10. 
 104  ACIL  comments  at  8;  ITS  comments  at  9;  TIA  comments  at  10. 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 26 
 during  the  transition  period.  105  Although  commenters  support  the  use  of  a  common  format  for  recording  and  transmitting  information  among  TCBs  and  the  Commission,  they  do  not  support  the 
 use  of  FCC  Form  730  for  this  purpose.  106  We  agree  that  FCC  Form  730  is  not  the  optimal  format  for  use  among  TCBs  and  the  Commission,  and  intend  to  develop  an  electronic  filing  system  and 
 common  database  to  fulfill  that  purpose.  In  the  mean  time,  however,  we  find  that  it  would  be  a  waste  of  resources  to  create  an  interim  solution.  Thus,  we  determine  that  we  will  utilize  FCC  Form 
 730  as  the  initial  information  transmission  format  for  the  purposes  of  implementing  the  TCB  program.  We  will,  however,  update  this  requirement  pursuant  to  further  TCB  program 
 implementation  activities. 
 B.  Mutual  Recognition  Agreements  (MRAs) 
 United  States  /  European  Community  MRA 
 53.  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  (EC).  The  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  was  signed  on  May  18,  1998,  and  entered  into  force  on  December  1,  1998. 
 54.  The  US/  EC  MRA  addresses  conformity  assessment  activities  in  six  industrial  sectors:  telecommunications  equipment,  electromagnetic  compatibility,  electrical  safety,  recreational  craft, 
 pharmaceutical  good  manufacturing  practice,  and  medical  devices.  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.  107 


 55.  Under  the  US/  EC  MRA,  products  can  be  tested  and  certified  in  the  United  States  for  conformance  with  EC  member  states'  technical  requirements.  The  certified  products  may  be  shipped 


 105  See  Notice  at  para.  24. 
 106  See  ACIL  comments  at  11-  12;  CCL  comments  at  8;  ITS  comments  at  10. 
 107  See  47  C.  F.  R.    2,  15,  18,  and  68. 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 27 
 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. 


 56.  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  began  on  the  effective  date  of  the  MRA,  which  is  December  1,  1998.  At  the  end  of  the  transition  period,  the  parties  should  be  prepared  for  full  mutual  recognition  of  product  certifications 
 and  registrations.  To  ensure  parity  between  U.  S.  and  EC  manufacturers,  we  will  not  permit  parties  in  an  EC  country  to  test  and  approve  products  to  U.  S.  requirements  until  that  country  permits  U.  S. 
 parties  to  test  and  approve  products  to  its  requirements. 
 Asia-  Pacific  Economic  Cooperation  (APEC)  MRA 
 57.  The  Office  of  the  United  States  Trade  Representative,  at  the  request  of  the  United  States  telecommunication  industry,  has  negotiated  a  Mutual  Recognition  Arrangement  (MRA)  for 
 Conformity  Assessment  for  Telecommunication  products  in  the  Asia-  Pacific  Economic  Cooperation  (APEC),  which  is  intended  to  facilitate  trade  in  telecommunications  and  radio  equipment  among  the 
 APEC  economies.  APEC  is  a  trade  cooperative  of  twenty-  one  economies  along  the  Pacific  Rim.  Commission  staff  and  representatives  of  the  United  States  telecommunications  industry  have  been 
 participating  in  a  Task  Force  Group  under  the  Telecom  Working  Group  of  APEC,  which  was  established  in  March,  1997  to  facilitate  the  development  of  the  APEC  Telecom  MRA. 


 58.  The  text  of  the  model  APEC  Telecom  MRA  was  finalized  on  April  30,  1998  and  was  endorsed  at  the  APEC  Ministerial  Meeting  on  June  5,  1998.  Unlike  the  US/  EC  MRA,  the  APEC 
 Telecom  MRA  is  a  voluntary  model  agreement.  To  enact  the  agreement,  each  APEC  member  economy  must  adopt  the  agreement  with  each  of  its  APEC  trade  partners,  such  as  the  United  States, 
 through  a  bilateral  exchange  of  letters.  Participation  in  the  APEC  Telecom  MRA  is  voluntary;  however,  if  a  member  economy  chooses  to  participate,  the  model  text  becomes  the  governing 
 document  for  conformity  assessment  between  the  participating  member  economies.  The  MRA  is  expected  to  take  effect  on  July  1,  1999,  although  individual  parties  may  agree  to  apply  it  bilaterally 
 before  that  date.  The  key  elements  of  the  APEC  Telecom  MRA  text  are  substantially  similar  to  the  key  elements  of  the  US/  EC  MRA  text,  with  the  following  exceptions:  the  APEC  Telecom  MRA  has 
 specific  designation  procedures  for  conformity  assessment  bodies  (CABs);  when  parties  agree  to  participate  in  activities  with  one  another,  the  transition  period  will  normally  be  twelve  months  from 
 the  date  of  mutual  agreement;  and  implementation  occurs  in  two  phases  -  the  first  for  accepting  test  results  and  the  second  for  accepting  product  approvals.  As  in  the  case  of  the  US/  EC  MRA,  we  will 
 not  permit  parties  in  an  APEC  member  economy  to  test  and  approve  products  to  U.  S.  requirements 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 28 
 unless  that  member  economy  permits  parties  in  the  U.  S.  to  test  and  approve  products  to  its  requirements.  We  adopt  the  tentative  conclusion  in  the  Notice  that  the  rules  proposed  in  this 
 proceeding  to  implement  the  US/  EC  MRA  are  sufficient  to  implement  the  APEC  Telecom  MRA.  108 
 Other  MRAs 
 59.  We  anticipate  that  the  United  States  may  develop  or  participate  in  additional  mutual  recognition  agreements  that  involve  other  regions  of  the  world.  For  example,  the  Interamerican 
 Telecommunications  Committee  (CITEL)  of  the  Organization  of  American  States  is  considering  developing  an  MRA  for  the  Americas  region. 


 Designation  of  TCBs  for  equipment  imported  into  the  United  States 
 60.  The  Notice  proposed  to  amend  our  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  certify  telecommunications  equipment  for  conformance  with  Part  68.  109  We  proposed  that  these  privileges  should  only  be  granted  subject  to  the  terms  and  conditions  specified  in 
 the  MRA.  110  No  parties  disagreed  with  this  proposal.  Accordingly,  we  are  amending  Parts  2  and  68  of  our  rules  to  allow  parties  in  MRA  partner  economies  to  certify  equipment  under  applicable  MRA 
 terms  and  conditions. 
 61.  In  accordance  with  the  US/  EC  and  APEC  MRAs,  the  United  States  and  each  MRA  partner  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  (CABs)  in  accordance  with  the  MRAs.  The  Designating  Authorities  must  meet 
 the  requirements  of  ISO/  IEC  Guide  61.  Designating  Authorities  will  in  turn  designate  CABs,  also  within  each  country's  territory,  that  will  be  empowered  to  approve  products  for  conformity  with  the 
 technical  requirements  of  countries  to  which  the  equipment  is  exported.  As  used  in  the  APEC  and  US/  EC  MRAs,  "conformity  assessment  body"  is  a  general  term  that  refers  to  a  body,  which  may 
 include  a  third  party  testing  laboratory  or  a  certification  body,  that  performs  conformity  assessment  to  specific  technical  regulations.  Consequently,  the  MRAs  cover  two  types  of  product  approvals 
 under  the  Commission's  rules:  certification,  which  is  approval  granted  by  a  certification  body,  such  as  a  TCB,  and  declaration  of  conformity,  which  requires  product  testing  by  an  accredited  testing 


 108  See  Notice  at  para.  35. 
 109  See  Notice  at  para.  33. 
 110  Id. 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 29 
 laboratory.  111  The  MRAs  state  that  the  designation  of  CABs  is  based  on  international  standards,  specifically  ISO/  IEC  Guides  65  and  25. 
 62.  Because  CABs  in  exporting  countries  will  be  certifying  equipment  for  import  into  the  United  States,  we  expect  that  those  CABs  will  follow  all  relevant  Commission  requirements  for 
 certification,  including  those  requirements  we  are  adopting  in  this  Report  and  Order.  Thus,  CABs  will  follow  the  implementation  guidelines  discussed  above.  The  MRAs  contain  provisions  to 
 remove  the  designation  of  foreign  certifiers  that  do  not  comply  with  the  applicable  requirements.  Those  provisions  are  discussed  below. 


 Designation  of  TCBs  for  equipment  exported  from  the  United  States. 
 63.  The  US/  EC  and  APEC  MRAs  identify  the  Designating  Authorities  for  the  United  States  as  NIST  and  the  Federal  Communications  Commission.  NIST  will  designate  conformity  assessment 
 bodies,  such  as  TCBs,  112  in  the  United  States  for  equipment  that  will  be  exported  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.  We  stated  in  the  Notice  that  it  would  be  unnecessary  for  the 
 Commission  to  play  a  direct  role  in  designating  or  supervising  TCBs  with  respect  to  equipment  being  exported.  However,  the  Commission  would  provide  assistance  and  guidance  to  NIST  as  may 
 be  necessary.  For  example,  if  questions  arise  as  to  the  performance  of  a  United  States-  based  CAB,  the  Commission  would  make  its  expertise  in  testing  and  measurements  available  as  needed  to 
 resolve  such  matters. 
 64.  We  adopt  the  approach  described  in  the  Notice  for  designating  conformity  assessment  bodies,  such  as  TCBs,  in  the  United  States  for  equipment  that  will  be  exported  to  countries  pursuant 
 to  MRAs.  TCBs  designated  to  certify  equipment  for  export  to  a  specific  country  shall  meet  the  qualification  criteria  specified  in  the  relevant  MRA.  We  conclude  that  NIST  has  sufficient  resources 
 and  experience  to  assume  responsibility  for  designating  and  overseeing  the  performance  of  TCBs  certifying  equipment  for  export,  in  conformance  with  MRA  obligations.  Thus,  the  Commission  will 
 not  perform  designation  and  oversight  functions  for  TCBs  certifying  equipment  for  export,  but  will  provide  assistance  and  guidance  to  NIST  as  necessary. 


 111  See  47  C.  F.  R    2.948(  d).  Laboratories  that  perform  testing  for  a  declaration  of  conformity  must  be  Guide  25 
 accredited.  The  accreditation  of  laboratories  located  outside  the  U.  S.  is  acceptable  only  if  1)  there  is  an  MRA  between  that  country  and  the  U.  S.,  and  the  laboratory  is  covered  by  the  agreement;  2)  there  is  an  agreement  between  accrediting  bodies 


 that  permits  similar  accreditation  of  U.  S.  facilities  to  perform  testing  for  products  marketed  in  that  country;  or  3)  the  country  already  accepts  the  accreditation  of  U.  S.  laboratories. 


 112  A  TCB  is  a  type  of  conformity  assessment  body. 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 30 
 65.  We  received  several  comments  on  the  MRA  provisions  for  equipment  being  exported  from  the  United  States.  DLS  and  USCEL  request  that  we  clarify  whether  the  US/  EC  MRA  covers 
 Competent  Bodies  in  Europe  which  evaluate  Technical  Construction  Files  for  electromagnetic  compatibility  (EMC)  that  are  used  in  some  cases  in  lieu  of  a  supplier  declaration,  and  whether  U.  S. 
 TCBs  should  be  permitted  to  prepare  Technical  Construction  Files  for  equipment  going  to  Europe.  113  Intertek  wants  the  Commission  to  clarify  that  U.  S.  TCBs  do  not  need  accreditation  from 
 Europe  to  approve  products  going  to  Europe.  114  SEA  notes  that  TCBs  approving  products  for  export  would  have  to  be  able  to  approve  products  for  many  different  countries,  since  standards  still  vary  by 
 country.  115  Cisco  wants  the  Commission  to  ensure  that  U.  S.  TCBs  are  capable  of  granting  equipment  authorizations  for  any  country  covered  by  the  US/  EC  MRA.  Otherwise,  manufacturers 
 would  have  to  approve  equipment  at  multiple  TCBs,  which  is  the  same  piecemeal  approach  manufacturers  currently  face.  116  PCTEST  does  not  believe  that  Europeans  will  accept  test  results 
 and  certifications  of  products  performed  in  the  United  States.  It  wants  the  Commission  to  take  an  active  role  in  TCB  certification  of  equipment  exported  to  Europe  and  other  countries.  117  SEA  also 
 expresses  concern  that  regulatory  authorities  in  some  countries  may  require  additional  approvals  despite  the  MRA.  118 


 66.  Some  of  the  concerns  raised  are  already  addressed  by  provisions  of  the  MRAs.  For  example,  the  EC  requirements  for  telecommunications  equipment  are  covered  by  three  separate 
 directives  --  EMC,  Low  Voltage  and  Telephone  Terminal  Equipment  (TTE)  Directives.  Each  directive  has  distinct  conformity  assessment  requirements.  Under  the  EMC  Directive  most 
 equipment  is  subject  to  supplier's  declaration,  except  that  when  standards  are  not  harmonized  within 


 113  See  DLS  comments  at  1,  and  USCEL  comments  at  2.  In  Europe,  manufacturers  may  declare  compliance  with  essential 
 elements  of  the  EMC  Directive,  relying  on  harmonized  standards.  If  standards  are  not  harmonized  or  the  standard  cannot  be  used  for  another  reason,  the  manufacturer  develops  a  technical  construction  file  (TCF)  which  a  European  Competent  Body  will 


 evaluate  to  determine  compliance. 
 114  See  Intertek  comments  at  4-  5. 


 115  See  SEA  comments  at  11-  14. 
 116  See  Cisco  reply  comments  at  9. 
 117  See  PCTEST  reply  comments  at  5. 
 118  See  SEA  comments  at  11. 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 31 
 the  EC  or  the  equipment  is  too  large  for  remote  testing,  the  supplier  must  use  what  is  called  the  Technical  Construction  File  (TCF)  route  to  market,  requiring  the  use  of  a  CAB  called  a  Competent 
 Body.  NIST  will  be  able  to  designate  a  U.  S.  entity  to  serve  as  a  Competent  Body,  provided  the  entity  is  accredited  to  Guide  25  and  meets  the  appropriate  technical  requirements  in  the  EMC 
 Directive.  Radio  transmitters  and  telephone  terminal  equipment  subject  to  the  TTE  Directive,  which  is  the  most  frequently  used  route  to  market,  must  be  approved  by  a  CAB  called  a  Notified  Body, 
 which  is  accredited  to  Guide  65.  In  either  case,  NIST  will  accredit  and  designate  the  U.  S.  TCBs  to  the  appropriate  directives.  Under  the  MRAs,  parties  are  to  accept  test  results  and  product 
 certifications  prepared  by  CABs  in  other  countries.  The  APEC  MRA,  for  example,  clarifies  that  an  importing  party  is  to  accept  test  reports  on  terms  no  less  favorable  than  those  it  accords  to  those 
 produced  by  its  own  CABs  and  that  re-  testing  or  duplicate  testing  is  to  be  avoided.  119  Because  technical  standards  vary  by  country,  a  U.  S.  CAB  may  be  found  qualified  to  certify  equipment 
 intended  for  export  to  some  countries  but  not  others.  The  US/  EC  MRA,  for  example,  does  not  require  that  CABs  in  this  country  be  capable  of  approving  equipment  to  all  of  the  EC  member  states 
 requirements,  and  we  find  no  basis  for  imposing  such  a  requirement.  We  expect  that  CABs  will  be  able  to  provide  certification  for  multiple  countries  because  manufacturers  will  expect  this  level  of 
 service  from  CABs. 
 Administration  of  the  MRAs 
 67.  The  US/  EC  MRA  provides  for  oversight  of  implementation  by  a  Joint  Committee  and  Joint  Sectorial  Committees  ("  JSC").  120  The  MRA  provides  that  Commission  representatives  will 
 participate  in  both  committees  for  the  United  States  with  regard  to  telecommunications  equipment  and  electromagnetic  compatibility  sectors.  The  APEC  MRA  has  similar  provisions  for  a  Joint 
 Committee  consisting  of  representatives  of  each  party,  with  subcommittees  including  persons  from  the  business/  private  sector.  We  conclude  that  Commission  participation  in  the  Joint  Committees  and 
 JSCs  will  be  important  to  ensure  the  successful  administration  and  implementation  of  the  US/  EC  and  APEC  MRAs.  For  example,  the  Commission  may  serve  as  an  independent  authority  to  evaluate 
 claims  of  performance  deficiencies  by  United  States  TCBs  or  the  noncompliance  of  specific  equipment  with  European  technical  requirements. 


 119  See  APEC  MRA,  Appendix  B  section  5. 
 120  The  US/  EC  MRA  states  that  it  will  be  administered  by  a  Joint  Committee  along  with  Joint  Sectoral  Committees 
 ("  JSCs")  in  the  various  sectors  (i.  e.  -  telecommunication  and  EMC).  The  Agreement  also  states  that  the  Joint  Committee  and  JSCs  will  consist  of  government  representatives,  with  possible  participation  by  private  sector  experts  in  the  JSCs.  These 


 groups  will  establish  their  own  operating  procedures.  Each  party  will  have  one  vote.  The  Joint  Committee  and  JSCs  will  provide  a  vehicle  for  the  exchange  of  information,  dispute  resolution,  and  general  management  of  the  implementation  of  the 
 US/  EC  MRA. 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 32 
 68.  With  regard  to  ensuring  the  ongoing  compliance  of  TCBs,  the  US/  EC  MRA  provides  that  if  a  particular  TCB  does  not  appear  to  be  performing  satisfactorily,  the  Commission  may  request 
 that  the  noncompliant  TCB  take  corrective  actions.  The  Commission  may  also  present  appropriate  evidence  to  the  JSCs  and/  or  Joint  Committee  and  request  removal  of  the  TCB  from  the  list  of 
 designated  Certification  Bodies.  The  APEC  MRA  also  has  provisions  for  contesting  a  TCB's  technical  competence,  and  provides  a  framework  to  limit  or  remove  the  recognition  of  TCBs  when 
 necessary.  The  Commission  shall  consult  with  the  Office  of  the  United  States  Trade  Representative  (USTR),  as  necessary,  concerning  any  disputes  that  arise  under  an  MRA.  121 


 C.  Global  Mobile  Personal  Communications  by  Satellite  (GMPCS) 
 69.  The  Notice  proposed  to  adopt  an  interim  equipment  authorization  procedure  for  GMPCS  terminals  prior  to  full  implementation  of  the  GMPCS  Arrangements.  122  The  Commission  will  be 
 undertaking  a  separate  proceeding  to  propose  rules  to  implement  fully  the  GMPCS  Arrangements.  Because  one  GMPCS  operator  was  providing  service  prior  to  the  Notice  and  another  system  was 
 scheduled  to  commence  service  before  final  rules  implementing  the  Arrangements  could  be  adopted,  we  proposed  a  set  of  interim  standards  under  which  applicants  could  request  equipment  certification. 
 We  believe  that  certification  of  GMPCS  terminals  will  be  a  major  benefit  to  the  global  satellite  industry.  A  Commission  equipment  authorization,  and  the  subsequent  placement  of  the  "GMPCS-MoU 
 ITU  Registry"  mark  on  the  terminals,  would  potentially  be  recognized  by  many  foreign  countries  as  sufficient  to  allow  the  equipment  to  transit  borders  more  easily  and  without  additional 
 type  approvals,  equipment  testing,  or  imposition  of  fees  or  delay  for  the  user. 
 70.  The  Notice  proposed  a  voluntary  equipment  authorization  procedure  that  would  apply  to  GMPCS  terminals  as  defined  by  the  1996  World  Telecommunications  Policy  Forum  held  under  the 
 auspices  of  the  ITU.  123  The  terminals  would  be  certified  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  in  Parts  1,  2  and  25  of  the  rules.  124  In  addition,  we  proposed  that  terminals  operating  in  the  1610- 


 121  See  the  Telecommunications  Trade  Act  of  1988  (Section  1371-  1382  of  the  Omnibus  Trade  and  Competitiveness  Act  of 
 1988).  Section  1377  requires  the  USTR  to  conduct  a  review  to  determine  whether  any  act,  policy,  or  practice  of  a  foreign  country  that  has  entered  into  a  telecommunications-  related  agreement  with  the  U.  S.  (1)  is  not  in  compliance  with  the  terms  of 


 the  agreement;  or  (2)  otherwise  denies,  within  the  context  of  the  agreement,  mutually  advantageous  market  opportunities  to  telecommunications  products  and  services  of  U.  S.  firms  in  that  country. 


 122  See  Notice  at  para.  37-  45. 
 123  See  supra  note  2. 
 124  See  47  C.  F.  R.,  Parts  1,  2  and  25.  Part  25  contains  the  technical  requirements  for  satellite  communications.  Part  1 
 contains  the  requirements  for  RF  safety,  and  Part  2  contains  the  equipment  authorization  requirements. 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 33 
 1626.5  MHz  band  would  also  have  to  meet  the  out-  of-  band  emission  limits  recommended  for  implementation  by  the  year  2000  by  the  National  Telecommunications  and  Information 
 Administration  (NTIA)  in  their  September  1997  petition  for  rule  making.  125 
 71.  A  number  of  parties  expressed  concern  about  the  out-  of-  band  emission  limits  proposed  in  the  Notice.  LSC,  Raytheon  and  the  GPS  Council  state  that  the  proposed  NTIA  limits  are  not 
 stringent  enough  to  protect  GPS  and  GLONASS.  126  However,  AMSC  and  CCI  state  that  the  NTIA  limits  are  too  stringent.  127  CCI  objects  to  the  fact  that  they  have  not  been  adopted  through  a  rule 
 making.  128  Moreover,  MCHI  believes  that  the  Commission  should  wait  to  approve  equipment  until  final  standards  are  adopted,  since  there  may  be  difficulties  in  recalling  or  retrofitting  noncompliant 
 equipment  if  the  final  standards  adopted  are  more  stringent  than  the  interim  ones.  129  TIA  in  their  comments,  and  Globalstar/  Airtouch,  Iridium,  MCHI,  Motorola  and  ORBCOMM  in  their  reply 
 comments,  all  state  that  the  issue  of  out-  of-  band  limits  should  be  addressed  in  a  separate  rule  making  proceeding.  130 


 72.  In  addition  to  uniform  support  expressed  for  the  Commission's  intention  to  rapidly  implement  the  GMPCS-  MoU  Arrangements,  we  also  received  comments  concerning  other  issues 
 related  to  the  interim  GMPCS  equipment  certification.  Primary  among  these  was  an  indication  by  several  parties  that  the  Commission  was  limiting  the  interim  authorization  procedure  to  "Big 


 125  See  RM-  9165 
 126  See  LSC  comments  at  1,  Raytheon  comments  at  1,  and  the  GPS  Council  comments  at  6. 
 127  See  AMSC  comments  at  3,  and  CCI  comments  at  3. 
 128  See  CCI  comments  at  3. 
 129  See  MCHI  comments  at  6-  7. 
 130  See  TIA  comments  at  15,  Globalstar/  Airtouch  reply  comments  at  5,  Iridium  reply  comments  at  5,  MCHI  reply 
 comments  at  2,  Motorola  reply  comments  at  8,  and  ORBCOMM  reply  comments  at  3. 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 34 
 Leos"  131  in  the  Notice.  Final  Analysis,  ICO,  Lockheed,  ORBCOMM  and  Iridium  all  state  that  the  interim  authorization  procedure  should  apply  to  other  mobile  satellite  terminals.  132 
 73.  In  the  Notice,  we  specifically  proposed  to  apply  an  interim  procedure  for  certifying  all  GMPCS-  related  terminal  equipment  where  we  have  authorized  service  and  which  demonstrates 
 compliance  with  the  Commission's  relevant  Part  1  and  Part  25  standards,  including  emission  limits  for  "Little  Leos"  133  contained  in  25.202(  f).  134  In  light  of  the  comments,  we  adopt  the  voluntary 
 interim  procedures  for  all  GMPCS  terminal  equipment. 
 74.  For  terminals  operating  in  the  1610-  1626.5  MHz  band,  we  proposed  to  add  a  requirement  that  the  out-  of-  band  emission  limit  of  -70  dBW/  MHz  averaged  over  any  20  millisecond 
 period  for  wide  band  emissions  occurring  between  1559-  1605  MHz  and  -80  dBW/  700  Hz  for  narrow  band  emissions  occurring  between  1559-  1605  MHz  would  also  need  to  be  met.  We  find  that, 
 for  the  following  reasons,  use  of  the  proposed  out-  of-  band  emission  standards  for  terminals  operating  in  the  1610-  1626.5  MHz  band  will  facilitate  the  authorization  process  for  this  equipment. 
 First,  the  International  Telecommunication  Union's  Radio  Sector  (ITU-  R)  Study  Group  WP  8D  has  adopted  the  proposed  wideband  standard  as  a  recommendation  for  suppression  of  spurious  emissions 
 for  MSS  systems  with  mobile  earth  terminals.  135  Similarly,  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.  136  Second,  NTIA  proposed  both  the  wide  and  narrowband  standards  cited  in  its  recent  petition  for  rule 
 making  concerning  out-  of-  band  emissions  standards  for  protection  of  radionavigation  devices.  By  using  the  most  stringent  requirement  currently  under  review,  we  will  ensure  that  MCHI's  concern 


 131  "Big  Leo"  systems  provide  voice  and  data  Mobile-  Satellite  Service  via  a  constellation  of  one  or  more  non-geostationary 
 orbit  satellites  operating  in  the  band  of  1610-  1626.5  MHz. 


 132  See  Final  Analysis  comments  at  3,  ICO  comments  at  2,  Lockheed  comments  at  2,  ORBCOMM  comments  at  7,  and  Iridium 
 reply  comments  at  3. 


 133  "Little  Leo"  systems  provide  data-  only  Mobile-  Satellite  Service  via  a  constellation  of  non-  geostationary  orbit 
 satellites  operating  below  1  GHz. 


 134  See  Notice  at  para.  45. 


 135  See  Recommendation  ITU-  R  M.  1343 
 136  See  ETSI  standards  TBR-  041  and  TBR-  042  for  Mobile  Earth  Terminals  in  the  1.6/  2.4  GHz  and  2.0  GHz  range, 
 respectively. 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 35 
 over  the  recall  or  retrofit  of  non-  compliant  equipment  in  the  future  is  minimized.  Since  the  Commission  will  consider  the  NTIA  petition  for  rule  making  in  conjunction  with  full 
 implementation  of  the  GMPCS  Arrangements,  any  further  concerns  about  the  proposed  NTIA  out-of-  band  emission  limits  are  best  addressed  in  the  future,  separate  proceeding. 


 75.  In  adopting  this  standard  for  voluntary  interim  certification,  we  are  not  prejudging  the  standards  that  we  will  ultimately  adopt  in  our  future  GMPCS  proceeding.  Rather,  we  are 
 establishing  here  a  voluntary  certification  process  designed  to  facilitate  the  circulation  of  GMPCS  terminals  across  borders,  aiding  system  operators,  manufacturers  and  users  of  GMPCS  service.  If 
 the  standards  we  adopt  in  the  GMPCS  proceeding  are  more  stringent  than  the  ones  used  for  interim  certification,  we  will  require  the  terminals  to  meet  the  stricter  standards,  in  accordance  with  any 
 associated  implementation  provisions  adopted  in  that  proceeding.  In  order  to  be  used,  the  terminals  must  be  operated  with  a  satellite  system  or  service  provider  authorized  to  provide  mobile  satellite 
 service  in  the  United  States.  Subsequent  to  receiving  a  blanket  authorization  under  Part  25  of  the  rules,  terminals  may  be  authorized  under  Part  2  of  the  rules. 


 76.  Accordingly,  we  amend  Part  25  of  the  rules  to  allow  for  the  voluntary  equipment  authorization  of  all  GMPCS  terminals  meeting  the  requirements  set  forth  in  our  Notice. 
 Authorizations  granted  under  this  interim  provision  will  be  conditioned  on  the  equipment  meeting  all  final  standards  eventually  adopted  for  GMPCS-  related  equipment. 


 ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 77.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  Parts  0,  2,  15,  25  and  68  of  the  Commission's  Rules  and  Regulations  ARE  AMENDED  as  specified  in  Appendix  A  effective  90  days  after  publication  in 
 the  Federal  Register.  This  action  is  taken  pursuant  to  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.  Sections  154(  i),  301,  302, 
 303(  e),  303(  f),  303(  r),  304  and  307. 
 78.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Section  5(  c)(  1)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    155(  c)(  1),  authority  is  delegated  to  the  Chief,  Office  of 
 Engineering  and  Technology  (OET)  and  the  Chief,  Common  Carrier  Bureau  (CCB)  to  develop  specific  methods  that  will  be  used  by  the  National  Institute  for  Standards  and  Technology  (NIST)  to 
 accredit  TCBs,  consistent  with  the  qualification  criteria  herein,  to  enter  into  a  memorandum  of  understanding  with  NIST  on  the  accreditation  process  for  TCBs,  to  designate  and  withdraw  the 
 designation  of  TCBs,  and  to  develop  procedures  that  TCBs  will  use  for  performing  post-  market  surveillance. 


 79.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Commission's  Office  of  Public  Affairs,  Reference  Operations  Division,  SHALL  SEND  a  copy  of  this  Report  and  Order,  including  the  Final  Regulatory 
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 36 
 Flexibility  Analysis  in  Appendix  C,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration. 
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 37 
 80.  For  further  information  regarding  this  Report  and  Order,  contact  Hugh  L.  Van  Tuyl,  (202)  418-  7506,  Office  of  Engineering  and  Technology.  For  Part  68  specific  questions,  contact 
 Vincent  M.  Paladini,  (202)  418-  2332,  Common  Carrier  Bureau.  For  Part  25  specific  questions,  contact  Tracey  Weisler  at  (202)  418-  0744. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Magalie  Roman  Salas  Secretary 
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 38 
 APPENDIX  A 
 FINAL  RULES 
 Part  0  of  Title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  amended  as  follows: 
 1.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  0  continues  to  read  as  follows: 
 AUTHORITY:  Sec.  5,  48  Stat.  1068,  as  amended;  47  U.  S.  C.  155,  225,  unless  otherwise  noted. 


 2.  A  new  paragraph  0.241(  g)  is  added  to  read  as  follows: 
 Section  0.241  Authority  delegated 
 *  *  *  *  * 
 (g)  The  Chief  of  the  Office  of  Engineering  and  Technology  is  delegated  authority  to  enter  into  agreements  with  the  National  Institute  of  Standards  and  Technology  to  perform  accreditation  of 
 Telecommunication  Certification  Bodies  (TCBs)  pursuant  to    2.960  and  2.962  of  this  chapter.  In  addition,  the  Chief  is  delegated  authority  to  develop  specific  methods  that  will  be  used  to  accredit 
 TCBs,  to  designate  TCBs,  to  make  determinations  regarding  the  continued  acceptability  of  individual  TCBs,  and  to  develop  procedures  that  TCBs  will  use  for  performing  post-  market 
 surveillance. 
 3.  A  new  paragraph  0.291(  i)  is  added  to  read  as  follows: 
 Section  0.291  Authority  delegated 
 *  *  *  *  * 
 (i)  The  Chief,  Common  Carrier  Bureau,  is  delegated  authority  to  enter  into  agreements  with  the  National  Institute  of  Standards  and  Technology  to  perform  accreditation  of  Telecommunication 
 Certification  Bodies  (TCBs)  pursuant  to    68.160  and  68.162  of  this  chapter.  In  addition,  the  Chief  is  delegated  authority  to  develop  specific  methods  that  will  be  used  to  accredit  TCBs,  to  designate 
 TCBs,  to  make  determinations  regarding  the  continued  acceptability  of  individual  TCBs  and  to  develop  procedures  that  TCBs  will  use  for  performing  post-  market  surveillance. 


 Part  2  of  Title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  amended  as  follows: 
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 39 
 4.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  2  continues  to  read  as  follows: 
 AUTHORITY:  47  U.  S.  C.  154,  302,  303,  307  and  336,  unless  otherwise  noted. 
 SOURCE:  28  FR  12465,  Nov.  22,  1963,  unless  otherwise  noted. 


 5.  A  new  Section  2.960  is  added  to  read  as  follows: 
 Section  2.960  Designation  of  Telecommunication  Certification  Bodies  (TCBs) 
 The  Commission  may  designate  Telecommunication  Certification  Bodies  (TCBs)  to  approve  equipment  as  required  under  this  part.  Certification  of  equipment  by  a  TCB  shall  be  based  on  an 
 application  with  all  the  information  specified  in  this  part.  The  TCB  shall  process  the  application  to  determine  whether  the  product  meets  the  Commission's  requirements  and  shall  issue  a  written  grant 
 of  equipment  authorization.  The  grant  shall  identify  the  TCB  and  the  source  of  authority  for  issuing  it. 


 (a)  The  Federal  Communications  Commission  shall  designate  TCBs  in  the  United  States  to  approve  equipment  subject  to  certification  under  the  Commission's  rules.  TCBs  shall  be  accredited 
 by  the  National  Institute  of  Standards  and  Technology  (NIST)  under  its  National  Voluntary  Conformity  Assessment  Evaluation  (NVCASE)  program,  or  other  recognized  programs  based  on 
 ISO/  IEC  Guide  65,  to  comply  with  the  Commission's  qualification  criteria  for  TCBs.  NIST  may,  in  accordance  with  its  procedures,  allow  other  appropriately  qualified  accrediting  bodies  to  accredit 
 TCBs  and  testing  laboratories.  TCBs  shall  comply  with  the  requirements  in    2.962  of  this  Part. 
 (b)  In  accordance  with  the  terms  of  an  effective  bilateral  or  multilateral  mutual  recognition  agreement  or  arrangement  (MRA)  to  which  the  United  States  is  a  party,  bodies  outside  the  United 
 States  shall  be  permitted  to  authorize  equipment  in  lieu  of  the  Commission.  A  body  in  an  MRA  partner  economy  may  authorize  equipment  to  U.  S.  requirements  only  if  that  economy  permits  bodies 
 in  the  United  States  to  authorize  equipment  to  its  requirements.  The  authority  designating  these  telecommunication  certification  bodies  shall  meet  the  following  criteria. 


 (1)  The  organization  accrediting  the  prospective  telecommunication  certification  body  shall  be  capable  of  meeting  the  requirements  and  conditions  of  ISO/  IEC  Guide  61. 
 (2)  The  organization  assessing  the  telecommunication  certification  body  shall  appoint  a  team  of  qualified  experts  to  perform  the  assessment  covering  all  of  the  elements  within  the  scope  of 
 accreditation.  For  assessment  of  telecommunications  equipment,  the  areas  of  expertise  to  be  used  during  the  assessment  shall  include,  but  not  be  limited  to,  electromagnetic  compatibility  and 
 telecommunications  equipment  (wired  and  wireless). 
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 40 
 6.  A  new  Section  2.962  is  added  to  read  as  follows: 
 Section  2.962  Requirements  for  Telecommunication  Certification  Bodies 
 Telecommunication  certification  bodies  (TCBs)  designated  by  the  Commission,  or  designated  by  another  authority  pursuant  to  an  effective  bilateral  or  multilateral  mutual  recognition 
 agreement  or  arrangement  to  which  the  United  States  is  a  party,  shall  comply  with  the  following  requirements. 


 (a)  Certification  Methodology 
 (1)  The  certification  system  shall  be  based  on  type  testing  as  identified  in  sub-  clause  1.2(  a)  of  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65. 


 (2)  Certification  shall  normally  be  based  on  testing  no  more  than  one  unmodified  representative  sample  of  each  product  type  for  which  certification  is  sought.  Additional  samples 
 may  be  requested  if  clearly  warranted,  such  as  when  certain  tests  are  likely  to  render  a  sample  inoperative. 


 (b)  Criteria  for  Designation 
 (1)  To  be  designated  as  a  TCB  under  this  section,  an  entity  shall,  by  means  of  accreditation,  meet  all  the  appropriate  specifications  in  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65  for  the  scope  of  equipment  it  will 
 certify.  The  accreditation  shall  specify  the  group  of  equipment  to  be  certified  and  the  applicable  regulations  for  product  evaluation. 


 (2)  The  TCB  shall  demonstrate  expert  knowledge  of  the  regulations  for  each  product  with  respect  to  which  the  body  seeks  designation.  Such  expertise  shall  include  familiarity  with  all 
 applicable  technical  regulations,  administrative  provisions  or  requirements,  as  well  as  the  policies  and  procedures  used  in  the  application  thereof. 


 (3)  The  TCB  shall  have  the  technical  expertise  and  capability  to  test  the  equipment  it  will  certify  and  shall  also  be  accredited  in  accordance  with  ISO/  IEC  Guide  25  to  demonstrate  it  is 
 competent  to  perform  such  tests. 
 (4)  The  TCB  shall  demonstrate  an  ability  to  recognize  situations  where  interpretations  of  the  regulations  or  test  procedures  may  be  necessary.  The  appropriate  key  certification  and 
 laboratory  personnel  shall  demonstrate  a  knowledge  of  how  to  obtain  current  and  correct  technical  regulation  interpretations.  The  competence  of  the  telecommunication  certification  body  shall  be 
 demonstrated  by  assessment.  The  general  competence,  efficiency,  experience,  familiarity  with 
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 41 
 technical  regulations  and  products  included  in  those  technical  regulations,  as  well  as  compliance  with  applicable  parts  of  the  ISO/  IEC  Guides  25  and  65,  shall  be  taken  into  consideration. 
 (5)  A  TCB  shall  participate  in  any  consultative  activities,  identified  by  the  Commission  or  NIST,  to  facilitate  a  common  understanding  and  interpretation  of  applicable  regulations. 
 (6)  The  Commission  will  provide  public  notice  of  the  specific  methods  that  will  be  used  to  accredit  TCBs,  consistent  with  these  qualification  criteria. 
 (c)  Sub-  contractors 
 (1)  In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  sub-  clause  4.4  of  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65,  the  testing  of  a  product,  or  a  portion  thereof,  may  be  performed  by  a  sub-  contractor  of  a  designated  TCB,  provided 
 the  laboratory  has  been  assessed  by  the  TCB  as  competent  and  in  compliance  with  the  applicable  provisions  of  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65  and  other  relevant  standards  and  guides. 


 (2)  When  a  subcontractor  is  used,  the  TCB  shall  be  responsible  for  the  test  results  and  shall  maintain  appropriate  oversight  of  the  subcontractor  to  ensure  reliability  of  the  test  results.  Such 
 oversight  shall  include  periodic  audits  of  products  that  have  been  tested. 
 (d)  Designation  of  TCBs 
 (1)  The  Commission  will  designate  as  a  TCB  any  organization  that  meets  the  qualification  criteria  and  is  accredited  by  NIST  or  its  recognized  accreditor. 


 (2)  The  Commission  will  withdraw  the  designation  of  a  TCB  if  the  TCB's  accreditation  by  NIST  or  its  recognized  accreditor  is  withdrawn,  if  the  Commission  determines  there  is  just  cause  for 
 withdrawing  the  designation,  or  if  the  TCB  requests  that  it  no  longer  hold  the  designation.  The  Commission  will  provide  a  TCB  with  30  days  notice  of  its  intention  to  withdraw  the  designation  and 
 provide  the  TCB  with  an  opportunity  to  respond. 
 (3)  A  list  of  designated  TCBs  will  be  published  by  the  Commission. 
 (e)  Scope  of  responsibility 
 (1)  TCBs  shall  certify  equipment  in  accordance  with  the  Commission's  rules  and  policies. 
 (2)  A  TCB  shall  accept  test  data  from  any  source,  subject  to  the  requirements  in  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65,  and  shall  not  unnecessarily  repeat  tests. 
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 42 
 (3)  TCBs  may  establish  and  assess  fees  for  processing  certification  applications  and  other  tasks  as  required  by  the  Commission. 
 (4)  A  TCB  may  rescind  a  grant  of  certification  within  30  days  of  grant  for  administrative  errors.  After  that  time,  a  grant  can  only  be  revoked  by  the  Commission  through  the  procedures  in   
 2.939.  A  TCB  shall  notify  both  the  applicant  and  the  Commission  when  a  grant  is  rescinded. 
 (5)  A  TCB  may  not: 
 (i)  grant  a  waiver  of  the  rules,  or  certify  equipment  for  which  the  Commission  rules  or  requirements  are  do  not  exist  or  for  which  the  application  of  the  rules  or  requirements  is  unclear. 


 (ii)  take  enforcement  actions;  or 
 (iii)  authorize  a  transfer  of  control  of  a  grantee. 
 (6)  All  TCB  actions  are  subject  to  Commission  review. 
 (f)  Post-  certification  requirements 
 (1)  A  TCB  shall  supply  an  electronic  copy  of  each  approved  application  form  and  grant  of  certification  to  the  Commission. 


 (2)  In  accordance  with  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65,  a  TCB  is  required  to  conduct  appropriate  post-market  surveillance  activities.  These  activities  shall  be  based  on  type  testing  a  few  samples  of  the 
 total  number  of  product  types  which  the  certification  body  has  certified.  Other  types  of  surveillance  activities  of  a  product  that  has  been  certified  are  permitted,  provided  they  are  no  more  onerous  than 
 testing  type.  The  Commission  may  at  any  time  request  a  list  of  products  certified  by  the  certification  body  and  may  request  and  receive  copies  of  product  evaluation  reports.  The  Commission  may  also 
 request  that  a  TCB  perform  post-  market  surveillance,  under  Commission  guidelines,  of  a  specific  product  it  has  certified. 


 (3)  If  during  post  market  surveillance  of  a  certified  product,  a  certification  body  determines  that  a  product  fails  to  comply  with  the  applicable  technical  regulations,  the  certification  body  shall 
 immediately  notify  the  grantee  and  the  Commission.  A  follow-  up  report  shall  also  be  provided  within  thirty  days  of  the  action  taken  by  the  grantee  to  correct  the  situation. 


 (4)  Where  concerns  arise,  the  TCB  shall  provide  a  copy  of  the  application  file  within  30  calendar  days  upon  request  by  the  Commission  to  the  TCB  and  the  manufacturer.  Where 
 appropriate,  the  file  should  be  accompanied  by  a  request  for  confidentiality  for  any  material  that 
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 43 
 qualifies  as  trade  secrets.  If  the  application  file  is  not  provided  within  30  calendar  days,  a  statement  shall  be  provided  to  the  Commission  as  to  why  it  cannot  be  provided. 
 (g)  In  case  of  a  dispute  with  respect  to  designation  or  recognition  of  a  TCB  and  the  testing  or  certification  of  products  by  a  TCB,  the  Commission  will  be  the  final  arbiter.  Manufacturers  and 
 designated  TCBs  will  be  afforded  at  least  30  days  to  comment  before  a  decision  is  reached.  In  the  case  of  a  TCB  designated  or  recognized,  or  a  product  certified  pursuant  to  an  effective  bilateral  or 
 multilateral  mutual  recognition  agreement  or  arrangement  (MRA)  to  which  the  United  States  is  a  party,  the  Commission  may  limit  or  withdraw  its  recognition  of  a  TCB  designated  by  an  MRA  party 
 and  revoke  the  certification  of  products  using  testing  or  certification  provided  by  such  a  TCB.  The  Commission  shall  consult  with  the  Office  of  the  United  States  Trade  Representative  (USTR),  as 
 necessary,  concerning  any  disputes  arising  under  an  MRA  for  compliance  with  the  Telecommunications  Trade  Act  of  1988  (Section  1371-  1382  of  the  Omnibus  Trade  and 
 Competitiveness  Act  of  1988). 
 Title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  Part  15,  is  amended  as  follows: 
 7.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  15  continues  to  read  as  follows: 
 Authority:  47  U.  S.  C.  154,  302,  303,  304,  307  and  544A. 
 8.  Section  15.101,  paragraph  (a)  is  revised  to  read  as  follows: 
 Section  15.101  Equipment  authorization  of  unintentional  radiators. 
 (a)  Except  as  otherwise  exempted  in    15.23,  15.103,  and  15.113,  unintentional  radiators  shall  be  authorized  prior  to  the  initiation  of  marketing,  as  follows: 


 Type  of  device  Equipment  authorization  required 
 TV  broadcast  receiver....................................  Verification 
 FM  broadcast  receiver...................................  Verification 
 CB  receiver....................................................  Declaration  of  Conformity  or  Certification 
 Superregenerative  receiver.............................  Declaration  of  Conformity  or  Certification 
 Scanning  receiver..........................................  Certification 
 All  other  receivers  subject  to  part  15............  Declaration  of  Conformity  or  Certification 
 TV  interface  device.......................................  Declaration  of  Conformity  or  Certification 
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 44 
 Cable  system  terminal  device........................  Declaration  of  Conformity 
 Stand-  alone  cable  input  selector  switch.........  Verification 
 Class  B  personal  computers  and  peripherals..  Declaration  of  Conformity  or  Certification.** 
 CPU  boards  and  internal  power  supplies  used  with  Class  B  personal  computers  Declaration  of  Conformity  or  Certification.** 


 Class  B  personal  computers  assembled  using  authorized  CPU  boards  or  power  supplies.  Declaration  of  Conformity 
 Class  B  external  switching  power  supplies....  Verification. 
 Other  Class  B  digital  devices  &  peripherals..  Verification. 
 Class  A  digital  devices,  peripherals  &  external  switching  power  supplies.  Verification. 


 All  other  devices...........................................  Verification 
 Note:  Where  the  above  table  indicates  more  than  one  category  of  authorization  for  a  device,  the  party  responsible  for  compliance  has  the  option  to  select  the  type  of  authorization. 


 **  Applications  for  this  equipment  will  no  longer  be  accepted  by  the  Commission  once  domestic  Telecommunication  Certification  Bodies  are  available  to  certificate  the  equipment.  See    2.960. 
 *  *  *  *  * 
 Title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  Part  25,  is  amended  as  follows: 
 9.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  25  continues  to  read  as  follows: 
 Authority:  47  U.  S.  C.  701-  744.  Interprets  or  applies  sec.  303,  47  U.  S.  C.  303.  47  U.  S.  C.  sections  154,  301,  302,  303,  307,  309  and  332,  unless  otherwise  noted. 


 10.  A  new  Section  25.200  is  added  to  read  as  follows: 
 Section  25.200  Interim  equipment  authorization. 
 (a)  For  purposes  of  this  section,  a  "GMPCS  system"  is  defined  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." 
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 45 
 (b)  Subsequent  to  receiving  a  blanket  authorization  under  this  part,  terminals  used  in  conjunction  with  GMPCS  systems,  as  defined  under  Section  25.200  (a)  above,  may  also  obtain  an 
 equipment  authorization  from  the  Commission  in  accordance  with  the  certification  procedure  for  use  under  this  part.  The  certification  procedure  is  found  in  Subpart  J  of  Part  2  of  the  Rules. 


 (c)  In  order  to  be  granted  certification,  a  transmitter  shall  comply  with  the  technical  specifications  in  this  part.  In  addition,  mobile  earth  satellite  terminals  for  use  in  the  band  of  1610  - 
 1626.5  MHz  shall  meet  a  specific  out-  of-  band  emissions  limit.  Emissions  in  the  band  1559-  1605  MHz  shall  be  limited  to  -70  dBW  /  MHz  averaged  over  any  20  millisecond  period  for  wideband 
 signals,  and  a  standard  of  -80  dBW  across  within  the  measurement  bandwidth  of  700  Hz  or  less  for  narrowband  signals. 


 (d)  Licensees  and  manufacturers  are  subject  to  the  radiofrequency  radiation  exposure  requirements  specified  in    1.1307(  b),    2.1091  and    2.1093  of  this  chapter,  as  appropriate. 
 Applications  for  equipment  authorization  of  mobile  or  portable  devices  operating  under  this  section  shall  contain  a  statement  confirming  compliance  with  these  requirements  for  both  fundamental 
 emissions  and  unwanted  emissions.  Technical  information  showing  the  basis  for  this  statement  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Commission  upon  request. 


 (e)  Equipment  authorizations  issued  pursuant  to  this  section  will  be  conditioned  on  the  equipment  meeting  all  relevant  technical  requirements  that  are  adopted  by  the  Commission  in 
 implementing  the  GMPCS  Arrangements. 


 Part  68  of  Title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  amended  as  follows: 
 11.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  68  continues  to  read  as  follows: 
 AUTHORITY:  47  U.  S.  C.  154,  303. 
 12.  A  new  Section  68.160  is  added  to  read  as  follows: 
 Section  68.160  Designation  of  Telecommunication  Certification  Bodies  (TCBs) 
 The  Commission  may  designate  Telecommunication  Certification  Bodies  (TCBs)  to  approve  equipment  as  required  under  this  part.  Certification  of  equipment  by  a  TCB  shall  be  based  on  an 
 application  with  all  the  information  specified  in  this  part.  The  TCB  shall  process  the  application  to  determine  whether  the  product  meets  the  Commission's  requirements  and  shall  issue  a  written  grant 
 of  equipment  authorization.  The  grant  shall  identify  the  TCB  and  the  source  of  authority  for  issuing  it. 
45
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 46 
 (a)  The  Federal  Communications  Commission  shall  designate  TCBs  in  the  United  States  to  approve  equipment  subject  to  certification  under  the  Commission's  rules.  TCBs  shall  be  accredited 
 by  the  National  Institute  of  Standards  and  Technology  (NIST)  under  its  National  Voluntary  Conformity  Assessment  Evaluation  (NVCASE)  program  ,  or  other  recognized  programs  based  on 
 ISO/  IEC  Guide  65,  to  comply  with  the  Commission's  qualification  criteria  for  TCBs.  NIST  may,  in  accordance  with  its  procedures,  allow  other  appropriately  qualified  accrediting  bodies  to  accredit 
 TCBs  and  testing  laboratories.  TCBs  shall  comply  with  the  requirements  in    68.162  of  this  Part. 
 (b)  In  accordance  with  the  terms  of  an  effective  bilateral  or  multilateral  mutual  recognition  agreement  or  arrangement  (MRA)  to  which  the  United  States  is  a  party,  bodies  outside  the  United 
 States  shall  be  permitted  to  authorize  equipment  in  lieu  of  the  Commission.  A  body  in  an  MRA  partner  economy  may  authorize  equipment  to  U.  S.  requirements  only  if  that  economy  permits 
 bodies  in  the  United  States  to  authorize  equipment  to  its  requirements.  The  authority  designating  these  telecommunication  certification  bodies  shall  meet  the  following  criteria. 


 (1)  The  organization  accrediting  the  prospective  telecommunication  certification  body  shall  be  capable  of  meeting  the  requirements  and  conditions  of  ISO/  IEC  Guide  61. 
 (2)  The  organization  assessing  the  telecommunication  certification  body  shall  appoint  a  team  of  qualified  experts  to  perform  the  assessment  covering  all  of  the  elements  within  the  scope  of 
 accreditation.  For  assessment  of  telecommunications  equipment,  the  areas  of  expertise  to  be  used  during  the  assessment  shall  include,  but  not  be  limited  to,  electromagnetic  compatibility  and 
 telecommunications  equipment  (wired  and  wireless). 
 13.  A  new  Section  68.162  is  added  to  read  as  follows: 
 Section  68.162  Requirements  for  Telecommunication  Certification  Bodies 
 Telecommunication  certification  bodies  (TCBs)  designated  by  the  Commission,  or  designated  by  another  authority  pursuant  to  an  effective  mutual  recognition  agreement  or 
 arrangement  to  which  the  United  States  is  a  party,  shall  comply  with  the  following  requirements. 
 (a)  Certification  Methodology 
 (1)  The  certification  system  shall  be  based  on  type  testing  as  identified  in  sub-  clause  1.2(  a)  of  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65. 


 (2)  Certification  shall  normally  be  based  on  testing  no  more  than  one  unmodified  representative  sample  of  each  product  type  for  which  certification  is  sought.  Additional  samples 
 may  be  requested  if  clearly  warranted,  such  as  when  certain  tests  are  likely  to  render  a  sample  inoperative. 
46
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 47 
 (b)  Criteria  for  Designation 
 (1)  To  be  designated  as  a  TCB  under  this  section,  an  entity  shall,  by  means  of  accreditation,  meet  all  the  appropriate  specifications  in  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65  for  the  scope  of  equipment  it  will 
 certify.  The  accreditation  shall  specify  the  group  of  equipment  to  be  certified  and  the  applicable  regulations  for  product  evaluation. 


 (2)  The  TCB  shall  demonstrate  expert  knowledge  of  the  regulations  for  each  product  with  respect  to  which  the  body  seeks  designation.  Such  expertise  shall  include  familiarity  with  all 
 applicable  technical  regulations,  administrative  provisions  or  requirements,  as  well  as  the  policies  and  procedures  used  in  the  application  thereof. 


 (3)  The  TCB  shall  have  the  technical  expertise  and  capability  to  test  the  equipment  it  will  certify  and  shall  also  be  accredited  in  accordance  with  ISO/  IEC  Guide  25  to  demonstrate  it  is 
 competent  to  perform  such  tests. 
 (4)  The  TCB  shall  demonstrate  an  ability  to  recognize  situations  where  interpretations  of  the  regulations  or  test  procedures  may  be  necessary.  The  appropriate  key  certification  and 
 laboratory  personnel  shall  demonstrate  a  knowledge  of  how  to  obtain  current  and  correct  technical  regulation  interpretations.  The  competence  of  the  telecommunication  certification  body  shall  be 
 demonstrated  by  assessment.  The  general  competence,  efficiency,  experience,  familiarity  with  technical  regulations  and  products  included  in  those  technical  regulations,  as  well  as  compliance 
 with  applicable  parts  of  the  ISO/  IEC  Guides  25  and  65,  shall  be  taken  into  consideration. 
 (5)  A  TCB  shall  participate  in  any  consultative  activities,  identified  by  the  Commission  or  NIST,  to  facilitate  a  common  understanding  and  interpretation  of  applicable  regulations. 


 (6)  The  Commission  will  provide  public  notice  of  specific  elements  of  these  qualification  criteria  that  will  be  used  to  accredit  TCBs. 
 (c)  Sub-  contractors 
 (1)  In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  sub-  clause  4.4  of  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65,  the  testing  of  a  product,  or  a  portion  thereof,  may  be  performed  by  a  sub-  contractor  of  a  designated  TCB,  provided 
 the  laboratory  has  been  assessed  by  the  TCB  as  competent  and  in  compliance  with  the  applicable  provisions  of  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65  and  other  relevant  standards  and  guides. 


 (2)  When  a  subcontractor  is  used,  the  TCB  shall  be  responsible  for  the  test  results  and  shall  maintain  appropriate  oversight  of  the  subcontractor  to  ensure  reliability  of  the  test  results.  Such 
 oversight  shall  include  periodic  audits  of  products  that  have  been  tested. 
47
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 48 
 (d)  Designation  of  TCBs 
 (1)  The  Commission  will  designate  as  a  TCB  any  organization  that  meets  the  qualification  criteria  and  is  accredited  by  NIST  or  its  recognized  accreditor. 


 (2)  The  Commission  will  withdraw  the  designation  of  a  TCB  if  the  TCB's  accreditation  by  NIST  or  its  recognized  accreditor  is  withdrawn,  if  the  Commission  determines  there  is  just  cause  for 
 withdrawing  the  designation,  or  if  the  TCB  requests  that  it  no  longer  hold  the  designation.  The  Commission  will  provide  a  TCB  with  30  days  notice  of  its  intention  to  withdraw  the  designation  and 
 provide  the  TCB  with  an  opportunity  to  respond. 
 (3)  A  list  of  designated  TCBs  will  be  published  by  the  Commission. 
 (e)  Scope  of  responsibility 
 (1)  TCBs  shall  certify  equipment  in  accordance  with  the  Commission's  rules  and  policies. 
 (2)  A  TCB  shall  accept  test  data  from  any  source,  subject  to  the  requirements  in  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65,  and  shall  not  unnecessarily  repeat  tests. 


 (3)  TCBs  may  establish  and  assess  fees  for  processing  certification  applications  and  other  tasks  as  required  by  the  Commission. 
 (4)  A  TCB  may  rescind  a  grant  of  certification  within  30  days  of  grant  for  administrative  errors.  After  that  time,  a  grant  can  only  be  revoked  by  the  Commission.  A  TCB  shall  notify  both 
 the  applicant  and  the  Commission  when  a  grant  is  rescinded. 
 (5)  A  TCB  may  not: 
 (i)  grant  a  waiver  of  the  rules,  or  certify  equipment  for  which  the  Commission  rules  or  requirements  are  do  not  exist  or  for  which  the  application  of  the  rules  or  requirements  is  unclear. 


 (ii)  take  enforcement  actions 
 (6)  All  TCB  actions  are  subject  to  Commission  review. 
 (f)  Post-  certification  requirements 
 (1)  A  TCB  shall  supply  a  copy  of  each  approved  application  form  and  grant  of  certification  to  the  Commission. 
48
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 49 
 (2)  In  accordance  with  ISO/  IEC  Guide  65,  a  TCB  is  required  to  conduct  appropriate  surveillance  activities.  These  activities  shall  be  based  on  type  testing  a  few  samples  of  the  total 
 number  of  product  types  which  the  certification  body  has  certified.  Other  types  of  surveillance  activities  of  a  product  that  has  been  certified  are  permitted,  provided  they  are  no  more  onerous  than 
 testing  type.  The  Commission  may  at  any  time  request  a  list  of  products  certified  by  the  certification  body  and  may  request  and  receive  copies  of  product  evaluation  reports.  The  Commission  may  also 
 request  that  a  TCB  perform  post-  market  surveillance,  under  Commission  guidelines,  of  a  specific  product  it  has  certified. 


 (3)  If  during  post  market  surveillance  of  a  certified  product,  a  certification  body  determines  that  a  product  fails  to  comply  with  the  applicable  technical  regulations,  the  certification  body  shall 
 immediately  notify  the  grantee  and  the  Commission.  A  follow-  up  report  shall  also  be  provided  within  thirty  days  of  the  action  taken  by  the  grantee  to  correct  the  situation. 


 (4)  Where  concerns  arise,  the  TCB  shall  provide  a  copy  of  the  application  file  within  30  calendar  days  upon  request  by  the  Commission  to  the  TCB  and  the  manufacturer.  Where 
 appropriate,  the  file  should  be  accompanied  by  a  request  for  confidentiality  for  any  material  that  qualifies  as  trade  secrets.  If  the  application  file  is  not  provided  within  30  calendar  days,  a  statement 
 shall  be  provided  to  the  Commission  as  to  why  it  cannot  be  provided. 
 (g)  In  case  of  a  dispute  with  respect  to  designation  or  recognition  of  a  TCB  and  the  testing  or  certification  of  products  by  a  TCB,  the  Commission  will  be  the  final  arbiter.  Manufacturers  and 
 designated  TCBs  will  be  afforded  at  least  30  days  to  comment  before  a  decision  is  reached.  In  the  case  of  a  TCB  designated  or  recognized,  or  a  product  certified  pursuant  to  an  effective  bilateral  or 
 multilateral  mutual  recognition  agreement  or  arrangement  (MRA)  to  which  the  United  States  is  a  party,  the  Commission  may  limit  or  withdraw  its  recognition  of  a  TCB  designated  by  an  MRA  party 
 and  revoke  the  certification  of  products  using  testing  or  certification  provided  by  such  a  TCB.  The  Commission  shall  consult  with  the  Office  of  the  United  States  Trade  Representative  (USTR),  as 
 necessary,  concerning  any  disputes  arising  under  an  MRA  for  compliance  with  under  the  Telecommunications  Trade  Act  of  1988  (Section  1371-  1382  of  the  Omnibus  Trade  and 
 Competitiveness  Act  of  1988). 
49
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 50 
 APPENDIX  B  LIST  OF  COMMENTING  PARTIES 
 Comments 
 1.  ACIL  2.  Acme  Testing  (Acme) 
 3.  Aeronautical  Radio,  Inc.  (ARINC)  4.  American  National  Standards  Institute  (ANSI) 
 5.  AMSC  Subsidiary  Corporation  (AMSC)  6.  Cisco  Systems,  Inc.  (Cisco) 
 7.  Communication  Certification  Laboratory  (CCL)  8.  Compliance  Engineering  Service,  Inc.  (Compliance) 
 9.  Constellation  Communications,  Inc.  (CCI)  10.  Curtis-  Strauss 
 11.  D.  L.  S.  Electronic  Systems,  Inc.  (D.  L.  S.)  12.  Final  Analysis  Communication  Services,  Inc.  (Final  Analysis) 
 13.  ICO  Global  Communications  (ICO)  14.  Information  Technology  Information  Council  (ITI) 
 15.  International  Certification  Services  (ICS)  16.  Intertek  Testing  Services  NA  Inc.  (ITS) 
 17.  Iridium  18.  Itron,  Inc.  (Itron) 
 19.  Leo  One  USA  Corporation  (Leo  One  USA)  20.  Lockheed  Martin  Corporation  (Lockheed  Martin) 
 21.  LSC,  Inc.  (LSC)  22.  Metricom,  Inc.  (Metricom) 
 23.  Mobile  Engineering  24.  Mobile  Communications  Holdings,  Inc.  (MCHI) 
 25.  Motorola,  Inc.  (Motorola)  26.  National  Institute  of  Standards  and  Technology  (NIST) 
 27.  Orbital  Sciences  Corporation  (Orbital)  28.  Orbital  Communications  Corporation  (ORBCOMM) 
 29.  Philip  Hooge  30.  Raytheon 
 31.  Retlif  Testing  Laboratories  (Retlif)  32.  Rockwell  International  Corporation  (Rockwell) 
 33.  SEA,  Inc.  (SEA)  34.  Soaring  Society  of  America,  Inc.  (Soaring  Society) 
 35.  Telecommunications  Industry  Association  (TIA)  36.  U.  S.  GPS  Industry  Council  (the  Council) 
50
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 51 
 37.  United  States  Council  of  EMC  Laboratories  (USCEL) 
 Reply  Comments 
 I.  AMSC  Subsidiary  Corporation  (AMSC)  II.  Bell  Atlantic 
 III.  BellSouth  Corporation  (BellSouth)  IV.  Cisco  Systems,  Inc.  (Cisco) 
 V.  Final  Analysis  Communication  Services,  Inc.  (Final  Analysis)  VI.  Globalstar,  L.  P.  and  Airtouch  Satellite  Services  U.  S.,  Inc.  (Globalstar  and  Airtouch) 
 VII.  Information  Technology  Industry  Council  (ITI)  VIII.  Iridium 
 IX.  Kenwood  Communications  Corporation  (Kenwood)  X.  Metricom,  Inc.  (Metricom) 
 XI.  Mobile  Communications  Holdings,  Inc.  (MCHI)  XII.  Motorola,  Inc.  (Motorola) 
 XIII.  Orbital  Communications  Corporation  (ORBCOMM)  XIV.  PCTEST  Engineering  Laboratory,  Inc.  (PCTEST) 
 XV.  Redcom  Laboratories  Incorporated  (Redcom)  XVI.  Retlif  Testing  Laboratories  (Retlif) 
 XVII.  Telecommunication  Industry  Association  (TIA) 
51
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 APPENDIX  C 
 FINAL  REGULATORY  FLEXIBILITY  ANALYSIS 
 As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  (RFA),  137  an  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (IRFA)  was  incorporated  in  the  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  in  GEN  Docket  98-  68.  138 
 The  Commission  sought  written  public  comment  on  the  proposals  in  the  Notice,  including  comment  on  the  IRFA.  The  comments  received  are  discussed  below.  This  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility 
 Analysis  (FRFA)  conforms  to  the  RFA.  139 
 A.  Need  for,  and  Objectives  of,  this  Report  and  Order 
 The  Commission  is  amending  Parts  2,  15,  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  adopting  rule  changes  to  implement  a  Mutual  Recognition  Agreement  (MRA)  for  product  approvals  with  the  European  Community  (EC),  the  Asia  Pacific  Economic  Cooperation  (APEC)  and 
 other  foreign  trade  parties.  These  actions  will  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.  We  are  also  adopting  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.  140  141  That  action  will  benefit  manufacturers  of  GMPCS  terminals  by  allowing  greater  worldwide  acceptance  of  their  products. 


 137  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,  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  121,  110  Stat.  847  (1996)  (CWAAA).  Title  II  of  the  CWAAA  is  the  Small  Business  Regulatory  Enforcement  Fairness  Act  of  1996  (SBREFA). 


 138  See  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  in  GEN  Docket  98-  68,  13  FCC  Rcd  10683,  10711  (1998). 
 139  See  5  U.  S.  C.    604. 
 140  "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." 
 141  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. 
52
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 53 
 B.  Summary  of  Significant  Issues  Raised  by  Public  Comments  In  Response  to  the  IRFA 
 Several  parties  commented  on  the  IRFA.  ACIL,  Acme,  ICS  and  Retlif  noted  that  the  IRFA  only  focuses  on  the  costs  to  small  manufacturers  and  not  to  small  test  laboratories.  142  Acme  stated 
 that  small  testing  laboratories  may  not  have  the  resources  to  become  TCBs  and  may  be  forced  to  exit  the  testing  business.  143  Retlif  stated  that  the  rules  will  add  another  assessment  fee  to  test  laboratories 
 who  wish  to  become  TCBs  or  subcontract  with  TCBs.  144  SEA  does  not  believe  the  benefits  of  the  rules  described  in  the  IRFA  outweigh  the  increased  expenses  and  paperwork  burdens  that  will  fall  on 
 RF  equipment  manufacturers.  145  However,  in  its  reply  comments,  TIA  disagreed  with  SEA,  stating  that  the  increased  number  of  TCBs  would  benefit  small  companies  because  of  their  global  reach.  146 
 TIA  further  stated  that  the  vast  majority  of  its  900  members  are  small  and  medium  companies  that  support  the  Commission's  proposed  changes. 


 C.  Description  and  Estimate  of  the  Number  of  Small  Entities  To  Which  Rules  Will  Apply 
 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. 


 142  See  ACIL  comments  at  12,  Acme  comments  at  3,  ICS  comments  at  4,  and  Retlif  comments  at  4. 
 143  See  Acme  comments  at  3. 
 144  See  Retlif  comments  at  4. 
 145  See  SEA  Regulatory  Flexibility  comments  at  3.  The  four  benefits  to  manufacturers  we  listed  in  the  IRFA  are  1) 
 providing  manufacturers  with  alternatives  where  they  could  possibly  obtain  certification  faster  than  available  from  the  Commission;  2)  providing  the  option  of  obtaining  certification  from  a  facility  in  a  more  convenient  location;  3)  reducing  the 


 number  of  applications  filed  with  the  Commission,  thereby  enabling  the  Commission  to  redirect  resources  to  enforcement  of  the  rules;  and  4)  allowing  equipment  to  be  certified  in  other  countries  is  a  necessary  step  for  concluding  mutual  recognition 
 agreements. 
 146  See  TIA  reply  comments  at  2. 
53
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 54 
 Regulatory  Flexibility  Analyses  need  only  address  the  impact  of  rules  on  small  entities  directly  regulated  by  those  rules.  See  Mid-  Tex  Electric  Cooperative,  Inc.  v.  FERC,  773  F.  2d  327, 
 342-  43  (D.  C.  Cir.  1985).  The  Commission's  equipment  authorization  rules  directly  regulate  only  manufacturers  of  equipment,  which  must  satisfy  the  Commission's  product  approval  requirements, 
 and  not  test  laboratories.  Therefore,  we  disagree  with  ACIL,  Acme,  ICS  and  Retlif  that  the  IRFA  should  have  addressed  the  impact  of  the  rules  on  small  test  laboratories. 


 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  of  "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.  147  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.  148  We  believe  that  many  of  the  companies  that  manufacture  RF 
 equipment  may  qualify  as  small  entities. 
 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.  149  According  to  1992  Census  Bureau  data,  there  were  479  such 
 manufacturers,  and  of  those,  436  had  999  or  fewer  employees,  and  7  had  between  1,000  and  1,499  employees.  150  We  estimate  that  there  fewer  than  443  small  manufacturers  of  terminal  equipment 
 that  may  be  affected  by  the  proposed  rules. 


 147  See  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  Standard  Industrial  Classification  (SIC)  Code  3663. 
 148  See  U.  S.  Department  of  Commerce,  1992  Census  of  Transportation,  Communications  and  Utilities  (issued  may  1995), 
 SIC  category  3663. 


 149  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  SIC  3661. 


 150  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). 
54
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 55 
 D.  Description  of  Projected  Reporting,  Recordkeeping,  and  Other  Compliance  Requirements 
 We  are  allowing  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  data  and  exhibits  to  either  that  the  rules  currently  require.  Therefore,  there  will  be  no  increase  in  the  paperwork  burden  on 
 manufacturers. 
 We  are  adopting  changes  to  implement  mutual  recognition  agreements  with  the  European  Community  and  the  Asia  Pacific  Economic  Cooperation  that  will  permit  certain  equipment  currently 
 required  to  be  authorized  by  the  FCC  to  be  authorized  instead  by  TCBs  in  Europe  or  Asia.  As  with  TCBs  in  the  United  States,  applicants  would  be  required  to  submit  to  a  foreign  TCB  the  same 
 application  data  and  exhibits  they  now  submit  to  the  Commission. 
 We  are  requiring  that  TCBs  submit  a  copy  of  certain  parts  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. 


 We  are  also  allowing  a  voluntary  equipment  authorization  for  mobile  transmitters  used  in  the  Global  Mobile  Personal  Communications  by  Satellite  (GMPCS)  service.  This  will  require  manufacturers 
 who  want  to  use  the  voluntary  procedure  to  file  an  application  and  technical  exhibits  with  the  FCC  and  wait  for  an  approval  before  the  equipment  can  be  marketed.  While  using  the  procedure  would 
 require  and  additional  filing  with  the  FCC,  it  will  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 


 Certain  equipment  that  uses  radio  frequencies  or  is  connected  to  the  public  switched  telecommunications  network  must  be  approved  by  the  Commission  before  it  can  be  marketed. 
 Allowing  parties  other  than  the  Commission  to  certify  equipment  will  have  the  following  benefits: 
 1.  It  will  provide  manufacturers  with  alternatives  where  they  could  possibly  obtain  certification  faster  than  available  from  the  Commission. 
 2.  Manufacturers  will  have  the  option  of  obtaining  certification  from  a  facility  in  a  more  convenient  location. 
55
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 56 
 3.  It  will  reduce  the  number  of  applications  filed  with  the  Commission,  which  will  enable  the  Commission  to  redirect  resources  to  enforcement  of  the  rules.  This  will  ensure  a  "level  playing 
 field"  for  all  manufacturers.  4.  Allowing  equipment  to  be  certified  by  parties  located  in  other  countries  is  an  essential  and 
 necessary  step  for  concluding  mutual  recognition  agreements  (MRAs).  MRAs  benefit  manufacturers  by  improving  access  to  foreign  markets. 


 As  previously  stated,  SEA  argued  that  these  four  benefits  do  not  outweigh  the  significant  increased  expenses  and  greater  paperwork  burden  that  will  fall  on  RF  equipment  manufacturers  as  a 
 result  of  the  rules.  151  TIA  disagreed  with  SEA,  stating  that  the  increased  number  of  TCBs  would  benefit  small  companies  because  of  their  global  reach,  and  that  the  vast  majority  of  its  members  are 
 small  and  medium  companies  that  support  the  changes  proposed  in  the  Notice.  152 
 This  Report  and  Order  allows  parties  other  than  the  Commission  to  certify  equipment,  but  it  does  not  change  the  information  required  to  obtain  a  grant  of  certification.  Therefore,  there  will  not 
 be  an  increase  in  the  paperwork  burden  on  manufacturers.  SEA  does  not  provide  any  data  to  justify  its  claim  of  significantly  higher  expenses  to  manufacturers.  Further,  the  Commission  will  continue 
 to  grant  certifications,  and  these  manufacturers  have  the  option  to  use  a  TCB,  but  are  not  required  to  do  so.  The  Commission  will  not  regulate  the  fees  that  TCBs  can  charge.  However,  as  we  stated  in 
 the  Report  and  Order,  we  expect  that  competition  between  TCBs  should  encourage  them  to  process  applications  at  a  reasonable  expense. 


 Federal  Rules  that  May  Duplicate,  Overlap,  or  Conflict  With  the  Proposed  Rule: 
 None. 


 151  See  SEA  Regulatory  Flexibility  comments  at  3. 
 152  See  TIA  reply  comments  at  2. 
56
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 57 
 Separate  Statement  of  Commissioner  Harold  W.  Furchtgott-  Roth 
 In  re:  Report  and  Order 
 1998  Biennial  Regulatory  Review  --  Amendment  of  Parts  2,  25  and  68  of  the  Commission's  Rules  to  Further  Streamline  the  Equipment  Authorization 
 Process  for  Radio  Frequency  Equipment,  Modify  the  Equipment  Authorization  Process  for  Telephone  Terminal  Equipment,  Implement 
 Mutual  Recognition  Agreements  and  Begin  Implementation  of  the  Global  Mobile  Personal  Communications  by  Satellite  (GMPCS)  Arrangements 


 I  support  adoption  of  this  Report  and  Order.  In  my  view,  any  reduction  of  unnecessary  regulatory  burdens  is  beneficial.  To  that  extent,  this  item  is  good  and 
 I  am  all  for  it.  This  item  should  not,  however,  be  mistaken  for  complete  compliance  with  Section  11  of  the  Communications  Act. 


 As  I  have  explained  previously,  the  FCC  is  not  planning  to  "review  all  regulations  issued  under  this  Act  .  .  .  that  apply  to  the  operations  or  activities  of 
 any  provider  of  telecommunications  service,"  as  required  under  Subsection  11(  a)  in  1998  (emphasis  added).  See  generally  1998  Biennial  Regulatory  Review  --  Review 
 of  Computer  III  and  ONA  Safeguards  and  Requirements,  13  FCC  Rcd  6040  (released  Jan.  30,  1998).  Nor  has  the  Commission  issued  general  principles  to 
 guide  our  public  interest  analysis  and  decision-  making  process  across  the  wide  range  of  FCC  regulations. 


 In  one  important  respect,  however,  the  FCC's  current  efforts  are  more  ambitious  and  difficult  than  I  believe  are  required  by  the  Communications  Act. 
 Subsection  11(  a)  --  "Biennial  Review"  --  requires  only  that  the  Commission  "determine  whether  any  such  regulation  is  no  longer  necessary  in  the  public 
 interest"  (emphasis  added).  It  is  pursuant  to  Subsection  11(  b)  --  "Effect  of  Determination"  --  that  regulations  determined  to  be  no  longer  in  the  public  interest 
 must  be  repealed  or  modified.  Thus,  the  repeal  or  modification  of  our  rules,  which  requires  notice  and  comment  rule  making  proceedings,  need  not  be  accomplished 
 during  the  year  of  the  biennial  review.  Yet  the  Commission  plans  to  complete  roughly  thirty  such  proceedings  this  year. 
57
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  98-  338 
 58 
 I  encourage  parties  to  participate  in  these  thirty  rule  making  proceedings.  I  also  suggest  that  parties  submit  to  the  Commission  --  either  informally  or  as  a 
 formal  filing  --  specific  suggestions  of  rules  we  might  determine  this  year  to  be  no  longer  necessary  in  the  public  interest  as  well  as  ideas  for  a  thorough  review  of  all 
 our  rules  pursuant  to  Subsection  11(  a). 
 *  *  *  *  *  *  * 
58