FCC Equipment Certification / Verification / Declaration of Conformity: What They Are & What Needs Work National Spectrum Management Association Mitchell Lazarus | May 15, 2012 FCC Equipment Certification / Verification / Declaration of Conformity: What They Are & What Needs Work National Spectrum Management Association Mitchell Lazarus | May 15, 2012

Overview  Equipment authorization: background  Types of equipment authorization  Procedural details  Recent improvements  What needs work 1

Equipment Authorization Defined  Procedures to ensure certain radio-frequency devices marketed in the U.S. comply with FCC technical rules  cover both intentional radiators (transmitters) and unintentional radiators (e.g., digital devices, receivers)  Compliance required before devices are:  sold or leased  offered for sale or lease  imported, shipped, or distributed for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease  Exceptions that allow advertising, contracts, trade shows, demos, customer testing, etc. before authorization. 2

Relation to Spectrum Management  Spectrum management  allocations & rules; interference protection criteria  technical rules (and standards called out in rules)  equipment & licenses  Equipment authorization “closes the loop”  ensures that hardware complies with FCC rules, and hence with spectrum management goals. 3

A Brief History  Before 1970, licensees were solely responsible for technical compliance of equipment  FCC published lists of approved transmitters  licensees could also use others, if they confirmed compliance  During 1960s, spread of transistor-based two-way radios made this scheme unworkable  1968: Congress authorized the FCC to regulate marketing of RF devices  1970: FCC adopted equipment authorization procedures to control marketing  1979: FCC added digital device rules  : FCC simplified procedures, outsourced approvals. 4

Types of Equipment Authorization 5

Verification – Procedures 1.Test device for compliance (at any lab) 2.Retain test data (and design info) 3.Label product to associate with retained file.  No submission or approval required. 6

Declaration of Conformity – Procedures 1.Test device for compliance at accredited lab 2.Retain test data (and design info) 3.Label product to associate with retained file 4.If digital device, label product with FCC logo 5.Include required statement with product  No submission or approval required. 7

Certification – Procedures  Test device for compliance (at any lab)  Assemble application (usually test lab does this):  form 731  compliance test report  user instructions  circuit description, block diagram, schematic (for transmitter)  interior & exterior photographs (showing FCC ID label)  more (varies with type of device)  Submit application to Telecommunications Certification Body (TCB) or (rarely) to FCC  Label product with FCC ID number  Await TCB or FCC approval before marketing. 8

Changes to Authorized Devices  Retest for compliance if a change plausibly affects emissions reported to the FCC  whether to retest is usually a judgment call  cumulative minor changes may add up to a need for retest  Verified device: retest; retain new test data  Declaration of Conformity device: retest; retain new test data  Certified device: some changes require new certification; otherwise–  if reported emissions do not go up, “Class I” change; no approval needed  if reported emissions do go up, “Class II” change  TCB or FCC approval needed prior to marketing new version. 9

Improvements over the Years  Procedures eliminated:  notification (merged into verification)  type acceptance (merged into certification)  type approval (abolished)  Digital devices changed from certification to DoC  Establishment of Knowledge Database (KDB)   full-text searchable; can search on type of device  TCBs authorized to issue certifications  faster than FCC  “exclusion list”: FCC must certify  “permit but ask”: TCB may certify in consultation with FCC. 10

Certification Trends ( ) 11 Graphic Courtesy of Rashmi Doshi, FCC

Test Procedures  Barest outlines in rules  some rules cross-reference third-party standards, e.g., CISPR  More detail in Knowledge Database  question whether contents of KDB are binding on the public  Vastly more detail in shared experience among test labs, TCBs, FCC lab staff. 12

What Needs Work 13

New Technologies  New RF technologies typically approved through rulemaking or waiver  FCC lab often tests new devices before turning over to TCBs  Testing issues often addressed only after rulemaking or waiver proceeding is complete  can add 3-6 months or more to approval  FCC has sometimes addressed testing issues in parallel with late stages of rulemaking or waiver  Parallel consideration should become the norm  FCC should routinely begin testing products under rulemaking or waiver as soon as technical rules take shape. 14

Enforcement Issues  Enforcement of equipment violations is highly uneven:  Rocky Mountain Radar marketed police speed radar jammer  FCC and U.S. Court of Appeal previously ruled device illegal  repeatedly caused actual interference to licensed service  forfeiture: $25,000  San Jose Navigation marketed device to retransmit GPS signals within a building  useful device; innocent error; no reports of actual interference  forfeiture: $75,000  Many obvious violations go unenforced  Some companies deliberately ignore FCC requirements  may compute downside risk to be cheaper than compliance. 15

Challenges to Authorizations  The FCC can withdraw a certification within 30 days  Later, the FCC can revoke a certification after a hearing for: 1.false statements in application 2.product does not conform to application 3.unauthorized changes to product 4.information warranting refusal of original application  But the FCC has considered late challenge to a certification on other grounds without a hearing  creates intolerable uncertainty for certification grantee  FCC should either:  automatically dismiss challenges after 30 days, or  establish clear and swift procedures for challenges. 16

Receiver Issues  FCC does not regulate receiver selectivity  (exception: frequency-hopping receivers under § )  proceeding on receiver standards dropped in 2007  Issue lately gained prominence in LightSquared proceeding  LS sought to provide broadband near GPS frequencies  some GPS receivers having poor selectivity were vulnerable to interference  question arose: whose problem is this?  Selective receivers promote spectrum efficiency  in some services, market forces may suffice  should the FCC adopt receiver standards? 17

Conclusion  The FCC has shown excellent progress over 40 years in making equipment authorization more efficient  Some work remains to be done. 18

19 Thank you! Mitchell Lazarus |