CTA and Others Warn of Unintended Consequences From 'Bad Lab' Rules

The economy “runs on FCC-authorized devices: wirelessly connected smart devices, including smartphones, laptops, televisions, wearables for healthier living, and smart home products,” CTA said in docket 24-136. The FCC should “take a measured approach to any actions” modifying the equipment authorization process, the group said.

Any rules should avoid “unnecessarily expelling or forbidding participants” from the program, CTA said. The group also warned against “barriers” to the relationships between TCBs and test labs and “third-party testing requirements that would undermine the Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) program.” If the FCC imposes new rules, it “must provide manufacturers with sufficient time and guidance to comply … and avoid more disruption to supply chains than is necessary,” CTA said. Any changes should “meaningfully increase security while minimizing burdens and adverse economic effects on consumers and innovators.”

The Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) warned against unintended consequences. Any rules should be “narrowly tailored to address concrete risks, align with existing national security and supply chain oversight frameworks, and avoid duplicative or conflicting mandates,” ITI said. Requiring U.S. companies “to navigate overly prescriptive or duplicative obligations as proposed by the FNPRM would risk slowing their ability to integrate the latest, most advanced technologies into products and services for the American public.”

The Telecommunications Industry Association said labs and TCBs from some countries do pose a risk, but any new rules should give companies time to comply. “ICT is a global industry, and while the existing testing and certification infrastructure is expensive, it is efficient,” TIA said. “Any further action taken too quickly will likely result in delays or increased costs for testing and certifying could have widespread effects on U.S. consumers.”

Bureau Veritas, an international lab company, said some of the proposed rules go too far. Many companies rely on labs in places like China “for efficient testing and certification,” Bureau Veritas said. Proposed geographic limitations could “force U.S. businesses to divert resources to perform testing elsewhere, while foreign competitors … may not face similar constraints, hindering market agility for U.S. business,” the company said.

The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition opposed changes to SDoC program rules. The proposed changes “would undermine the SDoC process without any countervailing benefits,” the coalition said. Requiring that all equipment authorized under SDoC procedures be tested at an accredited and FCC-recognized lab would “significantly increase testing costs, which will ultimately increase costs for consumer and other users of electronics across virtually every industry in the country,” the coalition said. The proposed changes would also “increase time-to-market for new products, making the U.S. … less competitive globally when it comes to the development and deployment of new technologies.”

The Mobile & Wireless Forum said that the outcome of the FNPRM could be the opposite of what the FCC is striving for in the “Delete” proceeding and other dockets. The rulemaking has the potential to add “unnecessary and burdensome requirements to the device authorization processes,” the forum said. Testing labs and TCBs aren’t “involved with manufacturing products that enter the stream of commerce,” the group said. “Nowhere in this assessment process is there an opportunity for the lab or TCB to inject malware or add hardware to a consumer product.” While labs and TCBs can engage in “shoddy work, that issue can be adequately addressed using existing FCC Post-Market Surveillance processes,” the forum said. “Put simply, low-quality work is not a national security concern.”