David A. Case and William Graff

With telecommunications certification bodies firmly in place in the United States, it's time to review the FCC and TCB approval processes available for telecommunications devices.

The process for putting a radio or telecommunications device on the market is quite simple: test the product to the required standards, assemble the required documents, and then send the complete report in to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a grant of equipment authorization. The problem for applicants, independent laboratories, and their agents is the length of the process. Depending on the FCC workload, product certification could take from 60 to more than 100 days. This has been known to make more than one project manager begin searching the Sunday help-wanted listings.

There is a faster way to obtain approvals for radio products, and that is through the Telecommunication Certified Body (TCB) program. However, before jumping for joy and rushing a product to a TCB to review the application, check to see whether the product falls within the scope of the TCB.

The TCB program was initiated by FCC under GEN Docket No. 98-68. Under this proposal, FCC would turn the approval process over to qualified third-party reviewers within the private sector, where ideally competition would create quick service without any loss of regulatory engineering or common sense. Specifically, FCC proposed the following:

• Streamlining the equipment authorization process by enabling designated private parties in the United States to approve equipment as an alternative to certification by FCC.
• Modifying FCC rules to implement a mutual recognition agreement (MRA) for product approvals with the European Union (EU) and allow for similar agreements with other foreign trade partners. Under the U.S.­EU MRA, products may be tested by private bodies in the United States for compliance with the technical requirements of EU member countries. Compliant equipment may then be approved for sale in the EU, with no further certification activity required. In return, the U.S.­EU MRA enables parties in the EU to test and approve equipment for compliance with U.S. requirements.
• Adopting an interim procedure to issue equipment approvals for global mobile personal communications by satellite (GMPCS) terminals.

The TCB program went into effect in June 2000 with 13 designated TCBs. Initial response was slow, as would be expected in a change of this magnitude. A number of procedural and software fixes had to be incorporated into the new system. Slowly through the summer and into the fall, all the elements began to take shape.

In November 2000, FCC stopped accepting any requests for the certification of Part 15 computers and peripherals. If an applicant desires certification and an FCC ID, and not the declaration of conformity approval as specified in Part 2.1071, the only choice would be to use the TCB process. This produced a great infusion of products into the TCB process, and placed TCBs on a more-even footing with FCC.

Designating a TCB

FCC does not authorize TCBs directly. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and individual accreditors make recommendations to FCC for final approval and inclusion in the listing of TCBs. For foreign entities, a domestically recognized accrediting agency equivalent to NIST usually issues its recommendations to FCC.

Domestic TCBs are required to be accredited by NIST. In addition, TCBs are to be accredited in accordance with the appropriate FCC rules and ISO/IEC Guide 65 (1996), "General Requirements for Bodies Operating Product Certification Systems." The staff of the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology and Common Carrier Bureau worked closely with NIST, equipment manufacturers, and test laboratories to develop an accreditation process that is consistent with the requirements of FCC rules and ISO/IEC Guide 65.

Accreditation is available for several different areas of equipment certification. TCBs can choose accreditation in any or all of the available areas. The different areas include telephone terminal equipment in 47 CFR Part 68 and the following:

Unlicensed radio-frequency (RF) devices.

• Low-power transmitters operating on frequencies below 1 GHz, with the exception of spread-spectrum devices; emergency alert systems; unintentional radiators (e.g., personal computers and associated peripherals and TV-interface devices); and consumer industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) devices subject to certification (e.g., microwave ovens, RF lighting, and other consumer ISM devices).
• Low-power transmitters operating on frequencies above 1 GHz, with the exception of spread-spectrum devices.
• Unlicensed personal communication system (PCS) devices.
• Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (UNII) devices and low-power transmitters using spread-spectrum techniques.

Licensed radio service equipment.

• Personal mobile radio services in 47 CFR Parts 22 (cellular), 24, 25, 26, and 27.
• General mobile radio services in 47 CFR Parts 22 (noncellular), 74, 90, 95, and 97.
• Maritime and aviation radio services in 47 CFR Parts 80 and 87.
• Microwave radio services in 47 CFR Parts 21, 74, and 101.

TCB Responsibilities and Restrictions

A TCB is obligated to follow the FCC model for certification procedures and practices. A TCB is expected to be exceedingly knowledgeable of FCC rules, public notices, and dockets, and all applicable test and measurement procedures, such as ANSI C63.4 and TIA/EIA 603.

In addition, a TCB must accept applications and test data from any source, subject to the subcontracting clause of ISO Guide 65. A TCB must not repeat tests without good cause and must treat all applications equally and fairly. A TCB may make changes to any grant within 30 days, including rescinding that grant. A TCB must perform a market surveillance of products it approves. Finally, a TCB must consult with FCC for any needed interpretations or guidance.

There are several restrictions on a TCB. A TCB may not make up rules. In general, TCBs were set up to handle routine equipment approvals, not issue grants in which no documented procedures exist. In addition, a TCB cannot waive the rules or certify a product for which there are no rules. FCC still retains control over the grantee database and is the source for all enforcement actions. At the time of this writing, the list of common equipment that a TCB cannot approve includes the following:

• 47 CFR Part 22 or 24 cellular subscriber equipment held to the head.
• UNII or spread-spectrum devices in the portable and mobile category above a limited RF power.
• Unlicensed millimeter-wave devices (47 CFR Sections 15.253 and 15.255).
• RF modules used in licensed equipment.
• All equipment where the controlled and occupational RF- exposure limits are applicable.
• Equipment with a maximum effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) of more than 1640 W.

FCC rules have three categories of transmitters that must be considered for the purposes of RF exposure. The transmitters are defined in legal terms that are not necessarily common to the laboratory:

• Portable (used within 20 cm of the body).
• Mobile (used beyond 20 cm of the body).
• Fixed (all other transmitters generally are considered fixed).

In general, all fixed licensed or unlicensed transmitters are eligible for TCB approval. All other mobile and portable transmitters have very specific limits with regard to RF power, conducted and radiated EIRP, and typical distance from the body in normal use. These limits should be reviewed carefully in advance with the TCB.

The TCB Review Cycle

TCBs are not nonprofit institutions; they can charge anything an unregulated market will bear. There are no fees for equipment authorization, and confidentiality is not exchanged between any TCB and FCC. The only fees still filed with FCC are for grantee codes. Most, but not all, TCBs are a business outgrowth of the independent laboratory system that has fed the equipment authorization and type approval process for years. Laboratory fees offset part of the cost of the approval. Each captive TCB will usually have a steady stream of test programs from its own laboratory feeding into its certification body. TCBs are very willing to accept test data from anyone, but TCBs often scare the smaller laboratories, which are afraid of losing their client list to a larger rival.

The alternative form is a truly independent TCB with no formal ties to a laboratory, but still possessing the specialized testing abilities needed for regulatory testing. Because regulatory approvals are their bread and butter, their laboratory is generally used for postgrant surveillance. Like their larger counterparts, these independent TCBs accept data from any source. Smaller laboratories are often less threatened and much more comfortable with this arrangement.

The first step in the review process is finding a laboratory and obtaining a valid test report. All reputable laboratories have a wealth of experience in dealing with FCC. However, ask the laboratory for the FCC ID of some sample reports, and research the laboratory using the FCC search engine at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid/. Find a laboratory with experience in the proper product category.

In choosing a laboratory, remember that a TCB can only accept data on a Part 15 device from laboratories that have an open-area test site listed with FCC. Interestingly, there is no similar restriction on licensed devices.

This may seem counterintuitive, but the rationale is that licensed transmitters are registered with FCC and can be found if an interference issue arises. The same cannot be said for low-power unlicensed devices. Unlicensed intentional radiators (Part 15 low-power transmitters) or unintentional radiators are for mass markets, where interference issues to licensed broadcast services is minimal.

After obtaining a test report from the laboratory, get a quote from the TCB. Usually, a simple e-mail or fax message will suffice. Upon acceptance and remittance to the TCB of their fees, the process formally begins. The test report and all exhibits as specified in 47 CFR Section 2.1033(b) for unlicensed transmitters and Section 2.1033(c) for licensed transmitters must be submitted to the TCB. TCBs prefer to receive the test report and exhibits in an electronic format because all reports and exhibits are eventually sent to FCC, and FCC only accepts them in an electronic format. The TCB process for requests for confidentiality is identical to that for FCC.

After submitting all the documentation, the waiting period begins. The length of the wait depends on the TCB. In general, TCBs are very conscious of the short product-cycle times in which success or failure in the marketplace is measured by days, and not weeks or months. The initial review for completeness is often immediate. Missing exhibits, bad grantee codes, and incorrect contact information can be caught immediately. Improper exhibits or test procedures must wait for the final review by the examining engineer.

Comparing the FCC and TCB Processes

The typical turnaround time for a product reviewed by a TCB averages 2 to 3 weeks. In many cases, expedited approval services are available, which can trim the time to fewer than 3 days for perfect reports with no additional requests for information. However, on average, fewer than 40% of the applications are clean enough to permit the issuance of a grant without any additional requests for information. This is similar to the FCC process. Remember that an application for a grant of equipment authorization is a legal document and not simply a test report.

As an example, two transmitters will be used to compare the FCC review process with the TCB process. The first transmitter is a 2.4-GHz wireless local-area network (WLAN) radio, and the other is a 1900-MHz base station. Both devices need to be certified for sale in the United States.

Because the WLAN radio module operates at 100 mW and can be used in portable, mobile, and fixed applications, the FCC route is the best option. The reason is that devices with portable applications require specific absorption rate (SAR) testing and evaluation, and TCBs are not allowed to address SAR issues until October 1, 2000.

In October, TCBs that have attended the required SAR training course taught by FCC in late August will be able to review and issue approvals for equipment that requires SAR evaluation. FCC plans to release a new TCB exclusion list in early or mid September. The list will include products that SAR-trained TCBs are allowed to review.

It was about 8 1/2 weeks before FCC started the review process on the WLAN radio. Because this was not a simple certification, the actual review time was about 4 1/2 weeks. It took about 13 weeks before approval was received to sell the radio device.

The second transmitter is a low-power base station. Because the system was designed to be used exclusively in the fixed or mobile categories, no SAR testing or review was required. The TCB chosen to do the review was accredited to certify products in that category.

For the base station, the initial review started within a week, and the entire review cycle, including answering additional questions, was about 31Ž2 weeks. The TCB grant was approved in less than 5 weeks.

The FCC route is slower because of the way in which FCC reviews the reports and because of its workload. Before the submission can be processed by FCC, the payment must be verified, and depending on whether it is an electronic payment or a check, this can take up to 2 weeks. Next, the submission is reviewed to see whether all the required documentation, such as the label, photographs, schematics, the manual, and so forth is included. The submission is then assigned to a reviewer. The process now depends on the workload of the reviewer and when that person can get to the submission. Remember that submissions are reviewed on a first-come, first-served basis. All this adds up to additional delays.

Although their workload is increasing, TCBs are not handling the volume that FCC is currently handling; hence, they are able to get to the review sooner. Although it can be said that the TCB route is faster, there are a few caveats. Even with multiple TCBs, some TCBs will most likely be swamped, and their cycle times will increase. Currently, FCC is reviewing TCB submittals and grants. An FCC review can slow down the TCB process. A TCB under review is given only 30 days to provide additional information to FCC or face having its grant withdrawn or set aside. In some cases, FCC might add a couple of additional notes and restrictions to a TCB-issued grant.

Another problem with TCB-issued grants is getting other countries or even some customers to accept the grants. Even after working out every issue, it can be hard to explain to those who are not familiar with the TCB program. This is an issue that FCC and TCBs need to address.

Conclusion

From the point of view of manufacturers, the TCB program is beneficial to the industry. Although the program has been in effect for less than a year, it is making a difference to those who use it to speed their time to market on some products. Now with the October 1, 2001, time frame for allowing TCBs to review products that must also be reviewed for SAR, the program is even better.

Unfortunately for some manufacturers, TCBs occasionally misapply the rules or certify products that are beyond their scope. This could result in a grant being dismissed, withdrawn, or set aside. To avoid such problems, FCC audits a majority of all TCB applications.

In a recent audit, FCC determined that nearly 25% of the grants issued by TCBs required some corrections, which resulted in the dismissal of some grants issued in error by TCBs. However, the problem of grants being issued in error is not unique to TCBs.

FCC recently had to withdraw a grant that one of its reviewers had issued in error. FCC is working with various TCBs to correct these types of issues to avoid recurrence. Manufacturers can also help prevent grant dismissals by reviewing the TCB exclusion list and then contacting FCC with any questions before proceeding with the review process.

David A. Case, NCE, is a senior radio compliance engineer for Cisco Systems Corporate Compliance Operations and EMC Standards Group (Akron, OH). He can be reached via e-mail at davecase@cisco.com.

William H. Graff is the president and director of engineering for American Telecommunications Certification Body (McLean, VA). He is a member of the IEEE and NARTE, and serves on the TCB Council. He can be reached via e-mail at whgraff@americantcb.com.

Back to September/October Table of Contents