Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 31685

2See 15 U.S.C. 632.

3See 13 CFR 121.201, (SIC) Code 3663.

4 See U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of

Transportation, Communications and Utilities

(issued May 1995), SIC category 3663.

established by the Small Business

Administration (‘‘SBA’’).2

The Commission has not developed a

definition of small entities applicable to

unlicensed communications devices.

Therefore, we will utilize the SBA

definition applicable to manufacturers

of Radio and Television Broadcasting

and Communications Equipment.

According to the SBA regulations,

unlicensed transmitter manufacturers

must have 750 or fewer employees on

order to qualify as a small business

concern.3 Census Bureau data indicates

that there are 858 U.S. companies 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.4

The Census Bureau category is very

broad, and specific figures are not

available as to how many of these firms

will manufacture unlicensed

communications devices. However, we

believe that many of them may qualify

as small entities.

11. Any Significant Alternatives

Minimizing the Impact on Small

Entities Consistent with Stated

Objectives. None.

List of Subjects 47 CFR Parts 2 and 15

Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–15393 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2, 25, and 68

[GEN Docket No. 98–68; FCC 98–92]

Streamlining the Equipment

Authorization Process; Implementation

of Mutual Recognition Agreements and

the GMPCS MOU

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rules.

SUMMARY: The Commission is proposing

to amend the rules to provide the option

of private sector approval of equipment

that currently requires an approval by

the Commission. It is also proposing

rule changes to implement a Mutual

Recognition Agreement (MRA) for

product approvals with the European

Community (EC) and to allow for

similar agreements with other foreign

trade parties. These actions are intended

to eliminate the need for manufacturers

to wait for approval from the

Commission before marketing

equipment in the United States, thereby

reducing the time needed to bring a

product to market. The Commission is

also proposing an interim procedure to

issue equipment approvals for Global

Mobile Personal Communication for

Satellite (GMPCS) terminals prior to

domestic implementation of the

GMPCS–MOU Arrangements. That

action would benefit manufacturers of

GMPCS terminals by allowing greater

worldwide acceptance of their products.

DATES: Comments are due July 27, 1998,

reply comments are due August 10,

1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hugh L. Van Tuyl, (202) 418–7506 or

Julius P. Knapp, (202) 418–2468, Office

of Engineering and Technology. For part

68 specific questions, contact Geraldine

Matise, (202) 418–2320 or Vincent M.

Paladini, (202) 418–2332, Common

Carrier Bureau. For part 25 specific

questions, contact Tracey Weisler at

202–418–0744.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, GEN Docket 98–

68, FCC 98–92, adopted May 14, 1998,

and released May 18, 1998. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and also

may be purchased from the

Commission’s duplication contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036.

Summary of the Notice of Proposed

Rule Making

1. The Commission proposes to

further streamline its part 2 equipment

authorization program and to commence

streamlining of part 68 of its rules in

order to enable designated private

parties to certify and register equipment.

The Commission also proposes

modifications to parts 2 and 68 of its

rules to implement the Mutual

Recognition Agreement between the

United States and the European

Community (US/EC MRA) and to

prepare for future mutual recognition

agreements that the United States may

enter into. The US/EC MRA serves the

interests of the United States by

promoting trade and competition in the

provision of telecommunications

products and increasing access to EC

markets by reducing the costs, delays,

and other burdens upon manufacturers

seeking to have their products approved

for sale in the EC. The Commission also

proposes to approve terminals used in

the GMPCS service prior to domestic

implementation of the GMPCS–MoU

Arrangements.

Part 2 Authorization Program

Streamlining

2. In the Report and Order (‘‘Order’’)

in ET Docket No. 97–94, adopted April

2, 1998, and released, April 16, 1998,

the Commission took several important

steps to reduce the burden of the part 2

equipment authorization program.

Those actions simplified the equipment

authorization rules, thus making it

easier to understand and comply with

the rules. Many types of equipment that

previously required Commission

approval were shifted to manufacturer

self-approval, thereby eliminating

delays in bringing products to the

market. Finally, the FCC equipment

authorization process was streamlined

by implementing an electronic filing

system for applications.

3. While manufacturer self-approval is

appropriate for many types of products,

certain products require closer oversight

due to such factors as a high risk of

noncompliance, the potential to create

significant interference to safety and

other communications services, and the

need to ensure compliance with

requirements to protect against radio

frequency exposure. Products that

currently require FCC certification

include mobile radio transmitters,

unlicensed radio transmitters and

scanning receivers. The Commission is

not proposing any further relaxations of

the certification requirements for

various equipment at this time. It

requests comments on these

conclusions. The Commission notes,

however, that in 1996 Congress gave it

explicit authority to authorize the use of

private organizations for testing and

certifying equipment. See 47 U.S.C.

302(e). The Commission believes that it

would be beneficial to exercise this

authority by allowing parties other than

the Commission to certify equipment.

Allowing parties other than the

Commission to certify equipment would

provide manufacturers with alternatives

where they could possibly obtain

certification faster than available from

the Commission. Further, by providing

for other product certifiers,

manufacturers would have the option of

obtaining certification from a facility in

a more convenient location. An

additional benefit of allowing other

parties to certify equipment would be a
31686 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

reduction in the number of applications

filed with the Commission. This would

enable the Commission to redirect

resources to enforcement of the rules.

Finally, allowing equipment to be

certified by parties located in other

countries is an essential and necessary

step for concluding mutual recognition

agreements, as discussed further below.

In light of these considerations, the

Commission is proposing to allow

private organizations to certify

equipment as an alternative to

certification by the Commission. The

Commission will refer to these

organizations as ‘‘Telecommunication

Certification Bodies’’, or TCBs, since

their purpose will be to grant

certification to telecommunication

equipment.

4. Qualification Criteria for TCBs. The

Commission believes that it is important

to establish appropriate qualification

criteria for Telecommunication

Certification Bodies to ensure that the

equipment they certify complies with

the Commission’s rules. The

Commission notes that section 302(e) of

the Communications Act gives it

authority to establish qualifications and

standards for private organizations that

may be authorized to certify equipment.

The Commission observes that an

international standard already exists

that establishes appropriate

qualifications for product certifiers: the

International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) / International

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)

Guide 65 (1996), General requirements

for bodies operating product

certification systems. ISO/IEC Guide 65

requires that product certifiers must:

• Be impartial.

• Be responsible for their decisions.

• Have a quality system.

• Have personnel with knowledge

and experience relating to the type of

work performed.

• Document the certification system.

• Maintain records of approvals.

• Conduct internal audits.

• Perform post-market surveillance.

Further requirements and details are

included in the standard. The

Commission tentatively concludes that

for the purposes of part 2 of the

Commission’s rules, ISO/IEC Guide 65

provides appropriate qualification

criteria for TCBs. Further, the

Commission notes that ISO/IEC Guide

65 is expected to be used as the primary

qualification criteria for TCBs under

mutual recognition agreements, so use

of this document for domestic purposes

will facilitate acceptance of U.S.

certifications internationally and

thereby promote U.S. trade abroad. The

Commission invites comment on its

proposal to use ISO/IEC Guide 65 as the

qualification criteria for TCBs.

5. In addition to the general

requirements of ISO/IEC Guide 65, the

Commission believes certain additional

specific requirements are appropriate to

qualify as a TCB. The

telecommunication certification body

must demonstrate expert knowledge of

the regulations for each product with

respect to which the body seeks

designation. Such expertise must

include familiarity with all applicable

technical regulations, administrative

provisions or requirements, as well as

the policies and procedures used in the

application thereof. The Commission

also believes that the

telecommunication certification body

should have the technical expertise and

capability to test the equipment it will

certify and must also be accredited in

accordance with ISO/IEC Guide 25,

General Requirements for the

Competence of Calibration and Testing

Laboratories, to demonstrate it is

competent to perform such tests. The

prospective telecommunication

certification body must demonstrate an

ability to recognize situations where

interpretations of the regulations or test

procedures may be necessary. The

appropriate key certification and

laboratory personnel must demonstrate

a knowledge of how to obtain current

and correct technical regulation

interpretations. Finally, the Commission

will require TCBs to make a

commitment to participate in any

consultative activities identified by the

Commission to establish a common

understanding and interpretation of

applicable regulations. The Commission

invites comments on these proposals

and whether any additional

requirements may be appropriate.

6. Procedure for Designating TCBs. To

show compliance with the

Commission’s qualification criteria, the

Commission is proposing to require that

parties desiring to be TCBs be evaluated

and approved by the National Institute

of Standards and Technology under its

National Voluntary Conformity

Assessment System Evaluation

(NVCASE) program. The Commission

proposes to designate as a TCB any

organization that is accredited by NIST

under the NVCASE program, and will

publish a list of all designated TCBs.

The Commission invites comments as to

any concerns about requiring

accreditation by NIST, particularly

regarding cost issues. An alternative to

requiring NVCASE accreditation would

be for the Commission to establish and

administer its own program for

designating TCBs. Comments are invited

on this alternative.

7. The Commission understands that

under the NVCASE program a TCB’s

accreditation may be suspended or

revoked for just cause. The Commission

invites comment regarding enforcement

and monitoring of TCB standards and

performance. The Commission also

invites comment as to the procedures

that may be appropriate for suspension

or revocation of a TCB’s designation. In

the event of suspension or revocation or

other disciplinary action against a TCB,

any equipment that was certified by that

TCB can continue to be imported and

marketed provided that equipment

otherwise conforms with the

Commission’s rules. The Commission

seeks comment on this proposal.

8. Implementation Matters. With

respect to the designation of TCBs for

certification of product compliance with

part 2 of the Commission’s rules, the

Commission recognizes that there are a

number of details that must be

addressed before it can allow TCBs to

certify equipment. As a general matter,

the Commission expects TCBs to

perform much the same application

processing functions that are currently

performed at the Commission’s

laboratory in Columbia, Maryland. In

this regard, the Commission is

proposing the following policies and

guidelines with regard to certification of

products by TCBs:

(a) Certification must be based on the

submittal to the TCB of an application

that contains all the information

required under the Commission’s rules.

(b) TCBs will be required to issue a

written grant of certification.

(c) The grantee of certification will

remain the party responsible to the

Commission for compliance of the

product.

(d) The certification must be based on

type testing as defined in subclause

1.2(a) of ISO/IEC Guide 65, and the type

testing should normally be done on only

one unmodified sample of the

equipment for which approval is sought.

This is the way the Commission

currently handles the certification of

products, which its experience has

shown works well.

(e) The Commission will not restrict

the fees that TCBs may charge for

certification.

(f) TCBs may either perform the

required compliance testing themselves,

or may accept and review the test data

from manufacturers or other

laboratories. TCBs may also subcontract

with others to perform the testing.

However, the TCB remains responsible

for ensuring that the tests were

performed as required and in this regard

TCBs are expected to perform periodic
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 31687

audits to ensure that the data they may

receive from others is indeed reliable.

(g) Equipment certified by a TCB must

meet all the Commission’s labelling

requirements, including the use of an

FCC Identifier.

(h) The Commission will require

TCBs to submit an electronic copy of

each granted application to the

Commission using the new electronic

filing system for equipment

authorization applications. This will

allow the Commission to easily verify

whether a piece of equipment has been

approved without having to locate the

TCB which approved it and obtain the

records. It will also allow the

Commission to monitor the activities of

the TCBs to determine how many

approvals are issued and for what types

of equipment. Finally, this would create

a common database that all parties can

use to verify approvals and obtain

copies of applications. Where

appropriate, the file should be

accompanied by a request for

confidentiality for any material that

qualifies as trade secrets.

(i) TCBs may approve requests for

permissive changes to certified

equipment, irrespective of who

originally certified the equipment.

(j) The Commission will require TCBs

to periodically perform audits of

equipment on the market that they have

certified to ensure continued

compliance.

The Commission invites comment on

these proposals and any other

implementation issues that may need to

be addressed. The Commission is

particularly interested in any alternative

proposals that are less burdensome

while still ensuring the integrity of the

certification program.

9. While the Commission proposes to

empower TCBs with authority to certify

equipment, it believes that certain

functions related to certification should

not be delegated by the Commission.

TCBs may not waive the Commission’s

rules. TCBs may not address new or

novel issues requiring interpretation of

the Commission’s technical standards,

testing requirements, or certification

procedures. TCBs will not be

empowered to authorize transfers of

control of grants of certification. TCBs

may not take enforcement action and

must refer to the Commission any

matters of noncompliance of which they

become aware. Finally, any decision

made by a TCB would be appealable to

the Commission. The Commission

solicits comment on these proposals.

The Commission intends to give TCBs

clear guidelines as to how to exercise

their new authority and seek comment

on what those guidelines should be.

10. The Commission believes that a

transition period of 24 months will be

necessary before it may allow TCBs to

certify equipment. This is similar to the

provisions contained in the EC MRA

and would provide parity between

domestic and international product

certifiers. The Commission would seek

to have the 24 month period coincide

with the transition period for the EC

MRA. During the 24 month period, the

Commission will work closely with

NIST on the evaluation and

accreditation of TCBs. The Commission

will also work with the TCBs to ensure

that they are fully familiar with the

Commission’s rules and will follow the

same procedures the Commission does

in approving equipment. The

Commission seeks suggestions for ways

it can make the transition to allowing

TCBs to certify equipment as quick,

smooth and effective as possible.

11. The Commission plans to

continue to certify equipment for the

foreseeable future, for a number of

reasons. First, it will help smooth the

transition to the new system until any

major problems with it are resolved.

Also, some manufacturers may prefer

FCC certification for business reasons,

since an approval issued by the U.S.

Government may seem more legitimate

to potential customers than one issued

by another party. Finally, it is possible

that certifiers may not emerge for certain

types of equipment, so the Commission

may be the only party available to

approve it. However, the Commission

requests comments on whether it should

eventually stop issuing approvals, and

rely solely on designated TCBs. The

Commission also invites comments on

concerns with the implementation of a

new system, and any areas not covered

above that need to be addressed.

The Part 68 Registration Program

12. In anticipation of the

implementation of the US/EC MRA into

part 68 of the Commission’s Rules, the

Commission recognizes the importance

of maintaining parity between TCBs

based in the United States and those

based in the EC. The Commission

tentatively concludes that the regulatory

treatment of TCBs and the requirements

for certification and registration of

terminal equipment should be

consistent, regardless of whether a TCB

is located in the United States or in the

EC. The Commission also tentatively

concludes that manufacturers and

suppliers in the United States and the

EC should face comparable

requirements with respect to part 68

certification and registration. The

Commission seeks comment on these

tentative conclusions.

13. The Commission seeks comment

on the specific activities that

certification bodies in the United States

should be empowered to perform on

behalf of domestic manufacturers and

suppliers with respect to part 68

certification and registration of products

marketed in the United States. In

particular, the Commission seeks

comment on whether certification

bodies should be permitted to perform

conformance assessment, certification

and registration activities. The

Commission also seeks comment on

whether and to what extent Commission

supervision of these activities is

necessary.

14. The Commission seeks comment

on practices and requirements that will

enable it to designate certification

bodies that are competent to perform

part 68 activities without direct

Commission supervision. With respect

to this proposal, the Commission seeks

comment on the range of issues

presented for TCB designation under

part 2 of the Commission’s rules,

including qualification criteria,

procedures for designating TCBs and

other implementation matters. Because

part 68 test procedures differ from those

used for parts 2, 15, and 18, TCBs that

propose to certify equipment for

compliance with part 68 will need to

demonstrate competence in part 68

testing and knowledge of part 68 rules.

The Commission tentatively concludes

that TCB qualification criteria should be

based on ISO/IEC Guide 65 and

designation of TCBs would be

performed by NIST in consultation with

the Commission in the same manner as

it has proposed with respect to part 2.

The Commission seeks comment on

these proposals.

15. The Commission also seeks

comment on the methods by which

TCBs may demonstrate their

competence to test, certify and register

products. For example, the Commission

seeks comment on whether TCBs should

use Form FCC 730 to transmit test data

to the Commission for equipment

registration. The Commission seeks

comment identifying criteria for

certification reports or notices that the

Commission may require from TCBs

that have been designated as competent

to perform part 68 certification activity.

Mutual Recognition Agreements

16. The Office of the United States

Trade Representative and the

Department of Commerce have

participated in negotiations over the

past several years to develop a mutual

recognition agreement for product

approvals with the European

Community. The Federal
31688 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Communications Commission has also

participated in these negotiations, as

have industry representatives from both

the United States and Europe. These

negotiations culminated on June 21,

1997 when the US/EC MRA was

finalized by the United States Trade

Representative and a representative of

the European Community. The

Agreement is expected to be signed in

London on May 18, 1998.

17. A copy of the completed MRA is

being inserted in the record for this

proceeding. The Commission’s

regulations apply directly to two

industry sectors, telecommunications

equipment and electromagnetic

compatibility (‘‘EMC’’), among the six

specifically addressed by the US/EC

MRA. The telecommunications sector

addresses terminal equipment covered

by part 68 of the rules, and transmitters

covered by part 2 and other parts of the

Commission’s rules. The EMC sector

applies to equipment addressed by parts

15 and 18 of the Commission’s rules.

18. Under the US/EC MRA, products

can be tested and certified in the United

States in conformance with the

European technical requirements. The

products may be shipped directly to

Europe without any further testing or

certification. In return, the MRA

obligates the United States to permit

parties in Europe to test and authorize

equipment based on the United States

technical requirements. The US/EC

MRA thereby promotes bilateral market

access and competition in the provision

of telecommunications products and

electronic equipment. The US/EC MRA

also will reduce industry burdens and

delays caused by testing and approval

requirements for products marketed in

the United States and Europe.

19. The US/EC MRA provides a 24

month transitional period that will be

used to implement the regulatory or

legislative changes necessary for both

parties to implement the US/EC MRA.

The period would begin on the effective

date of the MRA, which at this time is

anticipated to be July 1, 1998. At the

end of this period the parties should be

prepared for full mutual recognition of

product certifications and registrations.

The Commission tentatively concludes

that legislative changes will not be

required for the United States to

implement the US/EC MRA with regard

to telecommunications equipment and

electromagnetic compatibility. In this

proceeding, the Commission proposes

amendments to its rules to commence

regulatory implementation of the US/EC

MRA. Accordingly, the Commission

tentatively concludes that it is

appropriate to issue specific proposals

at this time to advance the process as

promptly as possible.

20. Designation of TCBs for

equipment exported to the United States

from Europe. In accordance with the

US/EC MRA, the United States and each

member state of the European

Community will identify a ‘‘Designating

Authority’’ in its territory. A

Designating Authority is a body with

power to designate, monitor, suspend,

remove suspension of or withdraw

conformity assessment bodies, such as

TCBs, in accordance with the US/EC

MRA. Designating Authorities will in

turn designate a number of TCBs, also

within each country’s territory, that will

be empowered to certify products for

conformity with the technical

requirements of countries to which the

equipment is exported.

21. Designation of TCBs for

equipment exported to Europe from the

United States. The US/EC MRA lists the

Designating Authorities for the United

States as the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) and

the Federal Communications

Commission. The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) is also a

designating authority for EMC aboard

aircraft. NIST will designate Conformity

Assessment Bodies in the United States

for equipment that will be exported to

Europe through its National Voluntary

Conformity Assessment System

Evaluation (NVCASE) program. NIST

will oversee the United States

Conformity Assessment Bodies on an

ongoing basis to ensure that they are

performing in a satisfactory manner.

The Commission believes it is

unnecessary for it to play a direct role

in designating or supervising TCBs with

respect to equipment going to Europe.

However, the Commission will provide

assistance and guidance to NIST as may

be necessary. For example, if questions

arise as to the performance of a United

States-based Conformity Assessment

Body, the Commission would make its

expertise in testing and measurements

available as needed to resolve such

matters. Comments are invited on this

general approach.

22. Administration of the US/EC

MRA. The US/EC MRA provides for

oversight of implementation by a Joint

Sectorial Committee (‘‘JSC’’). The

Agreement provides that Commission

representatives will participate as

appropriate in the Joint Committee, and

will chair the JSCs for the United States

with regard to telecommunications

equipment and electromagnetic

compatibility sectors. The Commission

invites comments on this general

approach to administration and

oversight of the US/EC MRA.

23. The Commission notes that the

JSC for telecommunications equipment

and EMC will produce a guidance

document confronting these and other,

more detailed issues relevant to bilateral

implementation of this Agreement. The

Commission seeks comment, however,

recommending and discussing specific

additions and modifications to its rules

that will support and amplify both the

Commission’s and the JSC’s efforts to

ensure that all products introduced into

the United States’ marketplace remain

in conformity with its rules.

24. Authority to approve equipment.

The Commission proposes amending its

rules as required to permit parties in

MRA partner economies to certify radio

frequency devices for conformance with

parts 2, 15, 18 and other rule parts and

to test, and eventually register

telecommunications equipment for

conformance with part 68. The

Commission tentatively concludes that

these privileges should only be granted

subject to the terms and conditions

specified in the US/EC MRA.

Specifically, the Commission notes that

both the United States and its MRA

partners retain the right to remove

noncompliant equipment and impose

penalties for marketing noncompliant

equipment as provided under the

applicable domestic law. The

Commission solicits comments on this

general approach and invites

suggestions as to any specific or

additional steps that may be necessary

or appropriate to transition its

procedures and ensure continued

compliance with the Commission’s

rules.

25. Asia-Pacific Economic

Cooperation (APEC) MRA. The Office of

the United States Trade Representative,

at the request of the United States

telecommunication industry, is

negotiating an MRA for Conformity

Assessment for Telecommunication

products in the Asia-Pacific Economic

Cooperation (APEC). APEC is a trade

cooperative of eighteen economies, soon

to be expanded to twenty-one

economies, along the Pacific Rim. The

APEC Telecom MRA is intended to

facilitate trade in telecommunications

and radio equipment among the APEC

economies.

26. The key elements of the APEC

Telecom MRA text are likely to be

substantially similar to the key elements

of the US/EC MRA text. A copy of the

text of the draft APEC Telecom MRA

will be placed in the record of this

proceeding. The Commission tentatively

concludes that the rules proposed in

this proceeding to implement the US/EC

MRA may be sufficient to implement

the APEC Telecom MRA. The
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 31689

1See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et.

seq., has been amended by the Contract With

America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law No.

104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of

the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

2 1998 Biennial Review—Amendment of parts 2,

25 and 68 of the Commission’s Rules to Further

Streamline the Equipment Authorization Process

for Radio Frequency and Telephone Terminal

Equipment and to Implement Mutual Recognition

Agreements.

Commission seeks comment on this

tentative conclusion, and requests

comment identifying further rule

changes that may be required to

implement the APEC Telecom MRA.

27. The GMPCS–MoU and

Arangments. The Commission

recognizes, that certain GMPCS systems

are now in operation or expected to

commence operation before it can adopt

final rules in the final GMPCS

implementation proceeding. The

Commission believes it must allow for

the expedient certification of GMPCS

equipment as soon as possible to

remove a potential barrier to the success

of the service. Accordingly, the

Commission will immediately begin to

certify, on an interim basis, GMPCS

equipment that meets all the acceptable

regulations under parts 1, 2, and 25 of

its rules and a stringent out-of-band

emission standard.

28. There is currently no requirement

in the Commission’s rules to obtain an

equipment certification for a GMPCS

terminal before it can be used or

marketed. However, it is evident that

the truly global, ubiquitous nature of

GMPCS service delivery can be ensured

only when the user has the capability of

transporting the GMPCS terminal across

national territories without delay or

fees.

29. To date, the Commission has

issued mobile earth terminal

authorizations to GMPCS service

providers under a ‘‘blanket license.’’

These authorizations specify general

operating parameters for a specific

number of terminals and specific

requirements for the protection of

radiocommunication services,

consistent with § 1.1307, and

§§ 25.135(b) and (c), 25.136(a) and (b),

25.202(a)(3), 25.202(a)(4), 25.202(d),

25.202(f), and 25.213(a)(1) and 25.213(b)

of the Commission’s rules. The

Commission also indicated that, when

applicable, licensees must meet any

spurious emission restrictions

established by the Commission in order

to protect the Russian Global Navigation

Satellite System (GLONASS) which is

operating in bands adjacent to those

used by some GMPCS terminals.

30. Since granting certain blanket

licenses for some MSS systems which

fall under the GMPCS umbrella, certain

international and domestic

organizations have proposed additional

requirements for protecting

radionavigation systems, beyond those

included for Global Positioning Systems

(GPS) in section 25.213 of the rules,

concerning both suppression of

emissions below 1610 MHz and

preventing harmful interference from

Big LEO systems operating in the

adjacent 1610–1626.5 MHz band. First,

the International Telecommunication

Union’s Radio Sector Study Group WP

8D has adopted a recommended

standard for suppression of spurious

emissions for MSS systems with mobile

earth terminals operating in the 1610–

1626.5 MHz band and will soon

consider setting similar standards for

other types of GMPCs terminals. The

European Commission/CEPT adopted a

European Testing and Standards

Institute (ETSI) standard late last year

for both CDMA and TDMA-type Mobile

Satellite Service (MSS) systems based

on this ITU–R recommendation.

31. The National Telecommunications

and Information Administration (NTIA)

proposed yet another set of standards to

protect GPS and GLONASS as part of

the Global Navigation Satellite System

(GNSS). In September 1997, the NTIA

petitioned the Commission to begin a

rulemaking to amend part 25 of the

FCC’s rules to incorporate additional

limits to protect GNSS equipment

operating within the 1559–1605 MHz

radionavigation satellite service band.

The NTIA recommended that, for MSS

mobile earth terminals operating in the

1610–1660.5 MHz band, out-of-band

signals must ultimately be limited to

¥70 dBW/MHz for wide band

emissions and ¥80 dBW/700 Hz for

narrow band emissions in the 1559–

1605 range. The Commission will

initiate a separate rule making to

consider the NTIA proposal.

32. Authorization of GMPCS

transmitters. The Commission intends

to allow GMPCS equipment to be

voluntarily submitted for certification,

on an interim basis, upon meeting all of

the relevant part 1 and 25 standards

concerning frequency range, tolerance,

out-of-band emission, spurious emission

limits to protect GPS, and radiation

hazards. Concerning the Commission’s

pending proceeding on additional

protection standards for GNSS, it will be

conditioning this interim approval for

GMPCS terminal equipment operating

in the band 1610–1626.5 MHz on the

ability of the applicant to meet the

strictest out-of-band emission limit

proposed at this time, specifically,

NTIA’s out-of-band emission limit

proposed for implementation by the

year 2005. NTIA proposes an out-ofband emission limit of ¥70 dBW/MHz

averaged over any 20 ms period for wide

band emissions occurring between

1559–1605 MHz and ¥80 dBW/700 Hz

for narrow band emissions occurring

between 1559–1605 MHz. However, the

NTIA’s proposed limit on narrowband

emissions specifies a measurement

bandwidth of 700 Hz. As there is some

question whether current

instrumentation is capable of measuring

across 700 Hz, it will suffice for

purposes of interim type approval for

manufacturers to demonstrate

compliance with the narrowband

standard of ¥80 dBW across 700 Hz or

less in accordance with the RTCA Inc.

Final Report in the context of GPS

protection requirements.

33. Finally, MSS satellite operators,

service providers and mobile earth

terminal manufacturers are advised that

all final FCC equipment approvals will

be conditioned on meeting the

requirements and procedures adopted in

the future GMPCS MoU implementation

proceeding, including the specific

spurious and out-of-band emission

limits adopted in that proceeding.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

34. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA),1 the Commission

has prepared this present Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the possible significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies

and rules proposed in this NPRM.2

Written public comments are requested

on this IRFA. Comments must be

identified as responses to the IRFA and

must be filed by the deadlines for

comments on this NPRM. The Office of

Public Affairs, Reference Operations

Division, will send a copy of the NPRM,

including the IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C.

603(a). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA

will be published in the Federal

Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules

35. The Commission is proposing to

amend parts 2, 25 and 68 of the rules

to provide the option of private sector

approval of equipment that currently

requires an approval by the

Commission. We are also proposing rule

changes to implement a Mutual

Recognition Agreement (MRA) for

product approvals with the European

Community (EC) and to allow for

similar agreements with other foreign

trade parties. These actions would

eliminate the need for manufacturers to

wait for approval from the Commission
31690 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

3 ’’Global Mobile Personal Communications by

Satellite’’ (GMPCS) service is defined in the 1996

Final Report of the World Telecommunications

Policy Forum as: ‘‘any satellite system, (i.e., fixed

or mobile, broadband or narrow-band, global or

regional, geostationary or non-geostationary,

existing or planned) providing telecommunication

services directly to end users from a constellation

of satellites.’’

4The 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.

5See 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) Code 3663.

6See U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census

of Transportation, Communications and Utilities

(issued may 1995), SIC category 3663.

7 13 CFR 121.201, SIC 3661.

8 1992 Economic Census, Industry and

Employment Size of Firm, Table 1D (data prepared

by U.S. Census Bureau under contract to the U.S.

Small Business Administration).

before marketing equipment in the

United States, thereby reducing the time

needed to bring a product to market. We

are also proposing an interim procedure

to issue equipment approvals for Global

Mobile Personal Communication for

Satellite (GMPCS) terminals prior to

domestic implementation of the

GMPCS–MOU Arrangements.3 4 That

action would benefit manufacturers of

GMPCS terminals by allowing greater

worldwide acceptance of their products.

B. Legal Basis

36. The proposed action is authorized

under sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e),

303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302,

303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307.

C. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to Which the

Proposed Rules Will Apply

37. Under the RFA, small entities may

include small organizations, small

businesses, and small governmental

jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The RFA,

5 U.S.C. 601(3), generally defines the

term ‘‘small business’’ as having the

same meaning as the term ‘‘small

business concern’’ under the Small

Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. A small

business concern is one which: (1) is

independently owned and operated; (2)

is not dominant in its field of operation;

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria

established by the Small Business

Administration (‘‘SBA’’). This standard

also applies in determining whether an

entity is a small business for purposes

of the RFA.

38. The Commission has not

developed a definition of small entities

applicable to RF Equipment

Manufacturers. Therefore, the

applicable definition of small entity is

the definition under the SBA rules

applicable to manufacturers or ‘‘Radio

and Television Broadcasting and

Communications Equipment.’’

According to the SBA’s regulation, an

RF manufacturer must have 750 or

fewer employees in order to qualify as

a small business.5 Census Bureau data

indicates that there are 858 companies

in the United States that manufacture

radio and television broadcasting and

communications equipment, and that

778 of these firms have fewer than 750

employees and would be classified as

small entities.6 We believe that many of

the companies that manufacture RF

equipment may qualify as small entities.

39. The Commission has not

developed a definition of small

manufacturers of telephone terminal

equipment. The closest applicable

definition under SBA rules is for

manufacturers of telephone and

telegraph apparatus (SIC 3661), which

defines a small manufacturer as one

having 1,000 or fewer employees.7

According to 1992 Census Bureau data,

there were 479 such manufacturers, and

of those, 436 had 999 or fewer

employees, and 7 had been between

1,000 and 1,499 employees.8 We

estimate that there fewer than 443 small

manufacturers of terminal equipment

that may be affected by the proposed

rules.

D. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

40. We are proposing to allow

designated Telecommunication

Certification Bodies (TCBs) in the

United States to issue equipment

approvals. Applicants for equipment

authorization may apply either to the

FCC or to a TCB, and they will be

required to submit the same application

form and exhibits that the rules

currently require. We are also proposing

to carry out a mutual recognition

agreement with the European

Community that will permit certain

equipment currently required to be

authorized by the FCC to be authorized

instead by TCBs in Europe. As with

TCBs in the United States, applicants

would be required to submit the same

application form and exhibits they do

now. We are proposing that TCBs

submit a copy of each approved

application to the FCC. Applications for

equipment authorization under part 2 of

the rules will be sent and stored

electronically using the new OET

electronic filing system. Paper copies of

part 68 applications will be required,

since there is not yet an electronic filing

system for those applications. However,

we are requesting comments on

alternatives to these proposals.

We are also proposing to require

equipment authorization for mobile

transmitters used in the Global Mobile

Personal Communications by Satellite

(GMPCS) service. This will require

manufacturers to file an application and

technical exhibits to the FCC or a

designated TCB and wait for an

approval before the equipment can be

marketed. While this action would

impose a new authorization

requirement, it should ultimately reduce

the burden on manufacturers. Under the

terms of the GMPCS MOU and

Arrangements, the single approval

obtained in the United States could

eliminate the need to obtain approvals

from multiple other countries.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

41. Certain equipment that uses radio

frequencies must be approved by the

Commission before it can be marketed.

Allowing parties other than the

Commission to certify equipment would

provide manufacturers with alternatives

where they could possibly obtain

certification faster than available from

the Commission. Further, by providing

for other product certifiers,

manufacturers would have the option of

obtaining certification from a facility in

a more convenient location. An

additional benefit of allowing other

parties to certify equipment would be a

reduction in the number of applications

filed with the Commission. This would

enable us to redirect resources to

enforcement of the rules. Finally,

allowing equipment to be certified by

parties located in other countries is an

essential and necessary step for

concluding mutual recognition

agreements. Therefore, we are proposing

to allow private organizations to certify

equipment as an alternative to

certification by the Commission.

F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rule

42. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2, 25,

and 68

Communications equipment, Report

and recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–15396 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P