Message text written by INTERNET:t...@world.std.com
>On December 17 FCC took another big step towards getting itself out of the telecommunications equipment approval business, in order to allocate resources to enforcement of its regulations. Docket 98-68 covers both wired and wireless telecom equipment de-regulation issues, an Adobe Acrobat file version of the docket is at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1998/fcc98338.pdf Text and Wordperfect versions also available on FCC's home page in the Headlines section. Tom, thank you very much for sharing this with us. You are correct from the perspective of what this means to Industry and Certification houses. However, you have not grasped the essence of the decision. The FCC REMAINS the Approval Authority. The TCBs only certify that the equipment meets the requirements. So, the FCC is getting out of some of parts of the approval business, but not all parts. Given that in the past one civil servant reviewed the applications for registration no matter who submitted them, and had a sixth sense for what was fishy, anything that requires more people and accredited laboratories and certification organizations WILL HAVE TO COST MORE and will probably not be as responsive, efficient and cost-effective. COMPARE THIS WITH THE MARK OF A NRTL, THE NRTL NEVER EVER SAY THEY APPROVE THE EQUIPMENT, THEY SAY THAT THE EQUIPMENT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SOME PARTICULAR STANDARD(S). THYE "LIST" THE EQUIPMENT ON A LIST OF EQUIPMENT THAT HAS PASSED THE TESTS. IF YOU READ THE FINE PRINT YOU FIND OUT THAT THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN APPROVE, AND DOES SO ON THE STRENGTH OF THE MARK OF A NRTL. PART 68 EQUIPMENT NEVER WAS APPROVED. IT WAS REGISTERED. This action amends parts 0,2,15,25, and 68 of the rules to give manufacturers the option of obtaining equipment CERTIFICATION from private entities for equipment requiring approval from the FCC. Telecommunication Certification Bodies, or TCBs, will be established "to function much like the Commission by certifying a product based on the test results of one representative sample." THE COMMISSION DID NOT DO MUCH CERTIFYING IN THE PAST. THEY REGISTERED. TCBs must "have the technical expertise and capability to test the equipment it will certify", although a TCB can accept manufacturer's data or data from subcontractors - the TCB will be responsible for subcontractor results. The Docket also adopts rule changes to implement Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) for product approvals with the European Community (EC), THE CHANGE IN THE RULES WAS INSTIGATED BY THE MRAs. IT IS NOT PROBABLE THAT THE RULES WOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED AS THEY ARE, IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE MRAs. the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperative (APEC), and others. TCBs will be private entities in the US, designated entities in other countries. WHETHER THE ENTITY IS PRIVATE OR PUBLIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DESIGNATION. THE US DESIGNATES QUALIFIED LABORATORIES TO THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY. THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DESIGNATES QUALIFED LABORATORIES TO THE US. THE US DESIGNATING AUTHORITY MUST ASSURE ITSELF THAT THE LABORATORIES THEY DESIGNATE ARE CAPABLE OF DOING THE JOB. BECAUSE THEY CANNOT TREAT FOREIGN BODIES DIFFERENT THAN NATIONAL BODIES, THEY HAD TO INSTITUTE THIS ACCREDITATION BUSINESS, OR MAKE IT A FREE-FOR-ALL. THEY CHOSE THE ACCREDITATION CHURCH, WHICH WILL DRIVE THE PRICE OF TELECOM PRODUCTS IN NORTH AMERICA UP FOR THE CONSUMERS. (I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE GONE THE FREE-FOR-ALL ROUTE. I AM MERELY STATING THAT WE WENT FROM A SIMPLE AND INEXPENSIVE APPROVALS ROUTE TO A MORE COMPLEX AND COSTLY ROUTE, IN THE HOPE AND EXPECTATION THAT WE WILL GAIN FROM THE INCREASE IN BUSINESS.) TCBs will be accredited to ISO/IEC Guide 65 and ISO/IEC Guide 25. NIST will be responsible for accrediting TCBs, FCC will DESIGNATE QUALIFIYING TCBs TO THE EUROPEAN UNION. SUCH DESIGNATIONS WILL BE ANNOUNCED via Public Notice. (NOTE: THE EU HAS THE RIGHT TO QUESTION US DESIGNATIONS, THE US HAS THE RIGHT TO QUESTION EU DESIGNATIONS. BEING DESIGNATED DOES NOT "NECCESSARILY" MEAN YOU'RE IN. I HAVEN'T CAREFULLY READ THE FCC DOCUMENT, SO I AM NOT SURE THAT THE FCC NEEDS TO DESIGNATE LABS FROM THE US, FOR THE US. I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE FCC WILL PROVIDE A PUBLIC NOTICE ON WHAT FOREIGN DESIGNATIONS IT DID ACCEPT). Once TCBs have been established, FCC will no longer process or issue certifications for pc's and pc peripherals (new para 15.101) There has been no limit put on the number of TCBs that will be accepted. TCBs will be able to perform all the equipment CERTIFICATION functions currently performed by FCC, with the following caveats and exceptions: - TCBs are not to impose their own requirements and conform test and certification procedures with FCC rules and requirements - TCBs will not be permitted to waive rules. Waivers and new or novel rule applications or interpretations will be done by FCC - Grantees of certification will remain the party responsible to FCC for product compliance - There are no restrictions for fees TCBs may charge for certifications - TCBs may process requests for permissive changes to certified equipment, irrespective of who originally certified the equipment - TCBs must perform periodic audits of equipment on the market they have certified to ensure continued compliance. - TCBs will not be allowed to authorize "transfers of control" on Part 2 grants of certification, only FCC can do this. TCBs will be allowed to authorize transfer of Part 68 grants. IMPLEMENTATION: The rules go into effect 90 days after Docket 98-68 is published in the Federal Register. The docket has a 24 month transition period for implementation of TCBs, FCC would like to implement sooner but a number of administrative tasks remain re documentation and accreditation issues. Since the 24 month transition period for MRAs began 1 Dec 1998, one can assume the TCB program will be in effect before 1 Dec 2000, although it is not explicitly so stated in the Docket. IMHO: The TCB program will cut certification times but costs are likely to remain the same. FCC contends competition among TCBs will reduce certification costs, but the TCBs will need to price their services to pay for the periodic equipment audits they are required to perform, and this will erode some or perhaps all of the anticipated savings. During the transition period, FCC will continue offer certification services. If I were a manufacturer with product to certify during this transition period, would I choose a rapid route to compliance knowing I would be subject to periodic equipment audits, or would I wait a few more weeks for the government to process the application and not have to worry about mandatory audits? There is still a lot of work and confusion ahead. With respect to intentional radiators (i.e. transmitters) the US standards seem well-defined and complete, but as yet the EU standards to which TCBs will be testing are not established. In other words, TCBs in the EC (TCBs are called CABs in the MRA, a TLA for Conformity Assessment Body) know what requirements they must meet for US certification, but the same thing cannot yet be said for US TCBs looking to sell products in the EU. Establishing the list will take time, since the US has one set of national requirements, and the EU at least 15 sets. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE EU HAS ONLY ONE EMC DIRECTIVE ??? The new rules state that FCC will not accept certifications from foreign TCB/CABs unless that country will accept certifications from US based TCBs for its nation's requirements. So, until these EU regulations are defined, it appears the only type of mutual recongnition that will occur will be for unintentional radiators, such as ITE equipment, and this is already in place. Happy New Year, everybody! Tom Cokenias EMC/Radio Approvals Consultant<
