Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ...

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of the Commission’s Rules regarding Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment Amendment of Part 68 regarding Approval of Terminal Equipment by Telecommunications Certification Bodies

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ET Docket No. 13-44

RM-11652

CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION COMMENTS SUPPORTING THE PETITIONS FOR CLARIFICATION OF MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. AND THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION I.

INTRODUCTION The Consumer Technology Association (“CTA”) 1 respectfully submits these comments

in support of the petitions filed by Motorola Solutions, Inc. (“MSI”) and the Telecommunications Industry Association (“TIA”) 2 seeking clarification and reconsideration of the Federal Communications Commission’s (“Commission’s”) Equipment Authorization Reform Report and Order. 3 The Commission took important steps in the Equipment Authorization

1

The Consumer Technology Association (“CTA”)TM, formerly the Consumer Electronics Association (“CEA”)®, is the trade association representing the $285 billion U.S. consumer technology industry. More than 2,200 companies – 80 percent are small businesses and startups; others are among the world’s best known brands – enjoy the benefits of CTA membership including policy advocacy, market research, technical education, industry promotion, standards development, and the fostering of business and strategic relationships. CTA also owns and produces CES® – the world’s gathering place for all who thrive on the business of consumer technology. Profits from CES are reinvested into CTA’s industry services.

2

Petition for Clarification and Partial Reconsideration of Motorola Solutions, Inc., ET Docket No. 13-44, RM-11652 (dated July 13, 2015) (“MSI Petition”); Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration, Telecommunications Industry Association, ET Docket No. 13-44, RM-11652 (dated July 13, 2015) (“TIA Petition”). 3

Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of the Commission’s Rules regarding Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment; Amendment of Part 68 regarding Approval of Terminal Equipment

Reform Report and Order to modernize and streamline the equipment testing process, such as by requiring all new applications for equipment certification to be submitted to Telecommunications Certification Bodies (“TCBs”). Key questions remain open, however, and industry requires guidance with respect to how to comply successfully with the Commission’s new rules. The Commission can continue to help foster innovation by ensuring that its regulations are necessary, specific, and clear. 4 The MSI and TIA petitions present an important opportunity for the Commission to do so. Specifically, CTA urges the Commission to (i) provide greater clarity regarding the path for re-qualification of test labs in non-Mutual Recognition Agreement (“MRA”) countries that previously were either accredited or listed under section 2.948, and (ii) establish a two-year transition period once the process is finalized during which section 2.948listed laboratories would be allowed to submit data in support of certification applications. The Commission should act promptly to ensure that the dynamic consumer technology industry continues to have access to a sufficient quantity of FCC-recognized laboratories that help ensure that consumers have the most innovative, safe, and reliable technologies available at market speed.

by Telecommunications Certification Bodies, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 16335 (2014) (“Equipment Authorization Reform Report and Order”). 4

See Gary Shapiro, President and CEO CTA, Does the Government Hurt Innovation?, Forbes (Feb. 6, 2013), http://www.forbes.com/sites/garyshapiro/2013/02/06/does-the-government-hurtinnovation (“Government has a role in innovation. Ensuring that old laws and regulatory regimes do not favor old competitors and old business models over new ones best fills that role. If America is to be the land of innovation then we must start doing away with outdated laws and ensure that new ones are necessary, specific and clear.”).

–2–

II.

BACKGROUND Devices subject to certification under Part 15 or Part 18 of the FCC’s rules currently must

be tested in a facility that is either “accredited” or “2.948-listed.” 5 In the Equipment Authorization Reform Report and Order, the Commission decided going forward to require that all laboratories that test devices subject to equipment certification be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025, thereby ending the section 2.948-listing program authorizing unaccredited labs to test devices to be certified under Parts 15 and 18 of the rules. 6 The Commission ceased recognizing new unaccredited section 2.948-listed laboratories as of July 13, 2015, the effective date of the rules. Laboratories previously recognized under the section 2.948 criteria will be recognized until July 13, 2016, with the intention to allow them time to become accredited. Laboratories listed under section 2.948 are allowed to submit test data in support of certification applications until October 13, 2016. The Commission acknowledged, however, that a large number of testing laboratories recognized as section 2.948-listed are located in countries that do not have an operational MRA and are not eligible to be recognized by the FCC until procedures for recognizing laboratories in non-MRA countries are in place. 7 Based on the issues this gap presents, MSI and TIA have asked the Commission to establish procedures and allow laboratories sufficient time to become requalified.

5

Equipment Authorization Reform Report and Order ¶ 39. For purposes of these comments, labs that are authorized to submit test data in support of certification applications are described as “qualified” or “recognized” labs. 6

Id. ¶ 45.

7

Id. ¶ 48 n.144.

–3–

III.

THE COMMISSION SHOULD CLARIFY ITS NEW PROCEDURES FOR LABORATORIES IN NON-MRA COUNTRIES Test laboratories in non-MRA countries are crucial to today’s global supply chains. The

marketplace can ill afford the delays that will result if the Commission does not ensure that demonstrably reliable and competent laboratories can continue to provide important product testing without interruption. TIA correctly observes that “ICT supply chains are global, resulting in benefits that include reduced cost of products and services to end users in consumer, business, and government contexts, as well as strengthened trade.” 8 MSI explains that it has several internal facilities in overseas locations recognized as section 2.948-listed test labs for purposes of submitting test data to TCBs. 9 Today, the consumer technology industry utilizes nearly six hundred section 2.948-listed laboratories, including many located in non-MRA countries, in addition to the accredited laboratories in non-MRA countries, to produce reliable test data. 10 In less than a year, the Commission will no longer accept test reports from current section 2.948-listed laboratories and accredited laboratories in non-MRA countries unless the laboratories can be requalified. Currently, organizations that are willing to accredit laboratories in non-MRA countries do not have a Commission-identified arrangement that would satisfy the rules so that the accreditation would be recognized by the FCC. 11 Likewise, the rules do not provide sufficient detail that would allow new accreditation bodies to form and successfully accredit laboratories in non-MRA countries. 12 The “assured … period of dormancy” for affected laboratories that would not be 8

TIA Petition at 4.

9

MSI Petition at 3.

10

TIA Petition at 4-5.

11

Id. at 7.

12

MSI Petition at 5.

–4–

able to submit test data to TCBs would be based solely on “their geographic location rather than their trustworthiness,” and would risk retarding innovation without benefitting consumers. 13 The Commission should move swiftly to either clarify the “procedures and criteria that will be used to evaluate test lab accreditation bodies pursuant to new rule section 2.949” or instruct the Office of Engineering and Technology (“OET”) to “articulate the relevant evaluation procedures and criteria through its Knowledge Database … or other public notice mechanism” in a more timely manner. 14 The Commission directed OET “to use its existing resources – including the KDB and public notice process – to provide additional guidance, clarification, and updates, as needed,” 15 but further clarification may also be necessary due to the number of open questions related to accreditation. 16 As recognized in the Equipment Authorization Reform Report and Order, “Laboratory accreditation is a rigorous process involving an extensive review of documentation and onsite visits by representative(s) of the accrediting body.” 17 Without Commission action with respect to accrediting bodies, it is unclear when laboratories can even begin this rigorous process. In addition, the Commission should clarify how section 2.948-listed laboratories in nonMRA countries can retain authority to submit test data. The Commission suggested that it would provide an alternate path for section 2.948-listed laboratories in non-MRA countries, but neither

13

Id. at 5.

14

MSI Petition at 4.

15

Equipment Authorization Reform Report and Order ¶ 52.

16

See, e.g., MSI Petition at 4-5 (describing uncertainties related the submission of a request to become a laboratory accreditation body recognized by OET, the procedures OET would use to evaluate such a request, and the substantive review of the requests).

17

Equipment Authorization Reform Report and Order ¶ 40.

–5–

the Commission nor OET has set forth new procedures to allow such labs to submit test data. 18 MSI explains that new rule section 2.949 states that a party wishing to become a laboratory accreditation body recognized by the OET must submit a written request to the Chief of OET requesting such recognition, but the rule provides insufficient detail on the form or mechanism for that submission. 19 CTA urges the Commission to put procedures in place as soon as practicable. 20 Companies that rely on laboratories in non-MRA countries to perform important testing for the consumer technology industry should not be penalized by Commission inaction. IV.

THE COMMISSION SHOULD PROVIDE A TWO-YEAR TRANSITION PERIOD AFTER ACCREDITATION PROCEDURES ARE ESTABLISHED FOR LABS IN NON-MRA COUNTRIES TO CONTINUE TO PERFORM IMPORTANT EQUIPMENT TESTING While unaccredited section 2.948-listed laboratories are awaiting instructions on how to

comply with the rules, the implementation clock is ticking away. 21 Typically, the Commission establishes requirements before or concurrent with the adoption of hard deadlines. 22 This affords affected parties time to plan and/or modify their practices before new requirements go into effect. As explained above, there is little that affected laboratories can do until the Commission provides the requested clarification. When doing so, the Commission also should extend the transition period to allow laboratories sufficient time to comply once they have received guidance. Many commenters originally urged a transition period of two years or more due to the costs of the accreditation process, as well as the need for potentially changing internal processes 18

TIA Petition at 8.

19

MSI Petition at 4.

20

See TIA Petition at 8.

21

TIA Petition at 8.

22

Id.

–6–

and for buying new equipment. 23 TIA correctly notes that “while attaining accreditation for laboratories typically takes at least one year, attaining this accreditation in countries without an operational MRA in place will likely face further increased difficulties.” 24 Thus, extending the transition period to two years for section 2.948-listed laboratories to receive authorization under the Commission’s new process (once that process has been clarified) will provide the minimum time needed for industry to transition to the new accreditation requirements. 25

23

See, e.g., Equipment Authorization Reform Report and Order ¶ 93 (observing that TIA, the American Council of Independent Laboratories, Teradata Corporation, and Hewlett-Packard Company all supported transition periods of two years or more for at least some parts of the new accreditation regime).

24

TIA Petition at 10.

25

MSI Petition at 8.

–7–

V.

CONCLUSION CTA urges the Commission to grant the petitions for clarification and reconsideration

filed by MSI and TIA, clarify the path forward for laboratories in non-MRA countries to become qualified to submit test data for certification applications, and establish a two-year transition period once the process is finalized during which section 2.948-listed laboratories are allowed to submit data in support of certification applications.

Respectfully submitted, CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION

By:

/s/ Julie M. Kearney

Julie M. Kearney Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Alexander B. Reynolds Director, Regulatory Affairs Consumer Technology Association 1919 S. Eads Street Arlington, VA 22202 (703) 907-7644 December 15, 2015