WASHINGTON-A Federal Communications Commission proposal to privatize the equipment-authorization process has been panned by parties directly impacted by the suggestion.
The FCC released a notice of proposed rule making this spring that would create Telecommunications Certification Bodies. TCBs would preform many of the functions of the FCC’s equipment-certification laboratory in Columbia, Md.
While many manufacturers urged the FCC to create TCBs, these same manufacturers have a variety of concerns about the process. “The comments are replete with examples of shortcomings in the proposed TCB rules. Indeed, all of the parties that manufacture regulated equipment describe aspects of the rules that must be modified. As a consequence, it is evident that the TCB proposal cannot be adopted at this time,” Cisco Systems Inc. said in reply comments filed last week at the FCC.
It is ironic that Cisco is leading the charge against TCBs because it has benefited from the creation of the Declaration of Conformity regime for computer products, which requires manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with radio-frequency emissions limits. Indeed, Cisco actually believes the FCC should expand its rules allowing for self-testing of regulated equipment but still maintain final certification authority.
In addition to Cisco, SEA Inc., a manufacturer of marine and 220 MHz equipment, believes the TCB proposal would increase costs to manufacturers, that it would take longer to process applications and new products would get to market later.
Specifically, SEA is concerned about the impartiality requirement imposed on TCBs. SEA believes this requirement would lead TCBs to reject any manufacturer’s testing, thereby avoiding possible allegations they may have been influenced by a particular manufacturer.
A testing laboratory, PCTEST Engineering Laboratory Inc., urged TCBs not be allowed to grant blanket authorizations to products that require routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure.
Most of these products, such as mobile radio transmitters, unlicensed radio transmitters, scanning receivers, and spread-spectrum devices, “are normally used in close proximity to the human body and as a result have the greatest potential for exposing the public to the biological hazards of RF radiation. The [FCC] is well aware that measurements of RF exposure from these devices are subject to wide variation and uncertainty,” PCTEST said.
Recently, the FCC, the Food and Drug Administration and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. formed a subcommittee to develop the standard to evaluate portable devices. For this reason, PCTEST believes it “seems premature for the [FCC] to delegate to the TCB[s] the authority to evaluate [RF exposure] without first adopting standardized test procedures.”
