CTA Among Those Concerned With Parts of Proposed 'Bad Lab' Rules

CTA said it supports the NPRM's goals but is concerned about a proposal imposing accreditation and FCC-recognition requirements on labs performing conformity testing under the agency’s supplier’s declaration of conformity (SDoC) equipment authorization process.

Rolling back “the seven-year-old SDoC program would not materially enhance national security or value for consumers, nor does the record support such action,” CTA said: Instead, the proposal “would disrupt global testing operations, delaying RF equipment approvals, stifling competition and increasing costs to consumers." The proposal could slow processes needed to get products to market "and therefore be inflationary and anti-consumer."

The Telecommunications Industry Association also urged the FCC to move carefully and avoid disrupting the broader information communications technology supply chain. “Consistent with past filings, TIA again cautions the FCC against disrupting the existing equipment authorization program, which was created to prevent radiofrequency interference, by introducing too many security-focused issues,” the group said. TIA noted that the agency’s primary concern appears to be telecommunication certification bodies (TCBs) and testing labs potentially owned or operated by companies on the covered list “or that have a significant ownership stake from foreign adversaries.”

The TIC Council Americas, which represents independent testing, inspection and certification companies, said it supports the thrust of the NPRM, but advocates for rules that are “narrowly tailored to address probable security threats.” The council said the FCC should avoid disruptions to the manufacturing and testing ecosystem and “undermining protections against RF interference.” Most companies that offer testing and certification are global, and “if the scope of this rule is broadened beyond prohibiting Covered List entity control of the test labs and TCBs, it should focus on those entities conducting RF testing and certification,”

The Telecommunication Terminal Industry Forum Association (TAF) said regulators should “carefully consider whether to use ‘national security threat’ as a reason for revoking the qualification of relevant national testing laboratories in the absence of concrete factual evidence proving such a … threat to U.S. national security.” For example, banning Chinese labs, TAF said, would “significantly extend the time-to-market for products and increase the prices of telecommunications products in the U.S.”

The ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB) said the FCC should clarify that the meaning of “affiliation” with a foreign entity on the covered list excludes “participation in widely recognized international accreditation” bodies. ANAB listed international agreements that it's signed and noted countries identified under federal law as foreign adversaries also participate in those pacts. “These voluntary arrangements are a critical element of ANAB’s evaluation and recognition as an accreditation body in support of both regulated and private sector accreditation schemes in the U.S. and abroad.”

But the Heritage Foundation questioned whether the proposed rules go far enough. Of the more than 600 test labs worldwide that the FCC recognizes, at least 170 are in China, Heritage said: “None of these labs appear to be directly owned by an entity on the Covered List, but we are uncertain if they are indirectly owned or affiliated with entities on the list. The proposed rule will have a greater impact if the FCC extends the prohibition to other known threats from foreign adversaries.”