The increasing prevalence of connected devices and the flourishing IoT market have brought tremendous earning potential for manufacturers of radio frequency (RF) transmitting products, including RFID readers. RF devices are being developed, tested, manufactured, and sold worldwide. To control production costs, many manufacturers selling devices in the United States conduct design and regulatory compliance testing overseas.
However, in recent months, due to restrictive actions by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the development costs for manufacturers who conduct R&D and device testing in many overseas countries are rising rapidly.
Currently, the FCC has begun to revoke authorizations of various testing laboratories. This will also negatively impact manufacturers' sales both in the U.S. and abroad.
　　FCC Ban on Use of Non-Accredited Testing Laboratories
The FCC recently issued new rules for RF device authorization, which may significantly impact the operations of RF device manufacturers, importers, distributors, and testing laboratories (see Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of the RF device authorization rules).
Under the old rules, the FCC allowed RF device certification using test reports from either FCC-accredited laboratories or laboratories listed under Section 2.948 (Section 2.948 refers to the FCC's detailed rules for laboratory authorization). The main difference is that accredited laboratories must meet ISO/IEC requirements, while Section 2.948 listed laboratories must submit information such as laboratory location, test structure, and measurement equipment to the FCC's OET office, which then certifies them and lists them on the permitted list.
In addition, the new regulations prohibit the use of non-accredited laboratories from the Section 2.948 list. Foreign testing laboratories also fall within the scope of the new regulations. The new rules require that all test results must be provided by laboratories accredited by an FCC-recognized certification body. After the transition period ends, foreign laboratories must be accredited by a recognized foreign accreditation body and certified by the FCC under the terms of the government-to-government Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA). Laboratories in non-MRA countries must be certified by an FCC-recognized body.
In summary, until the FCC issues new procedures to recognize these laboratories, manufacturers that previously used Section 2.948 listed laboratories for certification in non-MRA countries will be unable to use the certification results from those laboratories to sell RF devices in the United States. The problem is that the new FCC rules do not include such procedures.
　　Transition Period
The FCC's transition plan requires that certifications from Section 2.948 listed laboratories expire by July 13, 2016. After that date, test reports from such laboratories, both domestic and foreign, will no longer be valid.
The new regulations will harm manufacturers that use Section 2.948 listed laboratories in non-MRA countries, forcing them to bear the substantial costs of relocating testing facilities. Manufacturers in non-MRA countries using non-Section 2.948 laboratories will need to make alternative arrangements or risk losing access to the U.S. market. In either case, product development cycles will be severely disrupted, leading to significant economic losses.
　　Basics of Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA)
Many manufacturers that utilize overseas testing laboratories, especially when first entering international markets, choose laboratories in countries that have MRAs with the United States. Simply put, an MRA is a government-to-government trade facilitation measure. Under these agreements, participating countries mutually recognize the test results and equipment approvals of each other's Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs). CABs include accredited testing laboratories and telecommunications certification bodies that perform conformity assessments according to the technical regulations specified in the particular agreement.
The list of countries with MRAs signed with the FCC is provided in the following paragraph. Generally, these MRAs cover RF devices, but there are certain differences between MRAs of different countries. For example, some MRAs specify mutual recognition of test data in "Chapter 1," while others may do so in "Chapter 2."
The countries and regions that have signed MRAs with the FCC are as follows: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, South Korea, Sweden, Spain, United Kingdom, and Vietnam. The FCC also has a non-operational MRA with Mexico. Currently, the U.S. and Mexico are negotiating to make it operational.
　　Petitions for Reconsideration
The FCC is currently considering petitions for reconsideration of the new rules. These petitions request that the FCC clarify the accreditation procedures for non-MRA countries, explain how Section 2.948 listed laboratories in non-MRA countries can obtain accreditation, and provide a two-year transition period.
　　The Future Is UnclearThe FCC may or may not act on these petitions. However, even if the FCC grants part or all of the petitions, it will still impose conditions on the accreditation and certification processes, which could be very stringent. Given the importance and significant impact of the proposed rules, manufacturers (and the entire IoT ecosystem) should closely monitor developments.
There are still some issues in the proposed rules that manufacturers hope the FCC will clarify. For example, for U.S. or MRA company subsidiaries in non-MRA countries, the FCC provides no guidance on whether they can use subsidiary test data for certification.
Furthermore, some non-MRA countries are negotiating with the U.S. to implement MRAs, while others are not interested in MRAs at all and wish to protect their domestic manufacturing industries.
Therefore, for RF device manufacturers that wish to conduct testing overseas and sell products in the United States, they need to ensure that the laboratories they use are formally accredited and that test results are accepted by the FCC. For U.S. manufacturers wishing to sell products in non-MRA countries, their products need to be certified by the CABs of those countries.
　　Conclusion
As the article indicates, the regulatory challenges facing RF device manufacturers are complex. New issues will continue to emerge as IoT becomes more widespread. Consulting with knowledgeable consultants or lawyers will help manufacturers navigate the exploding global IoT market. (This article is from the internet)