The FCC carries out random audits of products that have received recent TCB grants.
David A. Case NCE, NCT, Cisco, Richfield, Ohio, USA
The question that occasionally comes up, generally from someone not familiar with compliance, goes something like, “What will the Federal Communications Commission do to us if we are non-compliant, or how will the agency know?” Both questions are often broached by people who are not familiar with compliance, or who do not understand the process. Significantly, they do seem to understand that compliance is something they should be aware of. My favorite question is “Who is going to know?”
Those familiar with compliance testing know that scrutiny of a product does not simply end when the Declaration of Conformity certificate is signed or when the FCC grant is issued. In fact, both of these documents are just proof that a sample of the product was tested and that it passed the required tests. In most cases, that determination stands; however, professionals involved in compliance testing are well aware that there is more to product compliance than the issuance of the initial paperwork.
COMPLIANCE AUDITS
Industry insiders are familiar with term compliance audit and with the agencies that conduct the pre- or post-compliance audits. These audits are generally pretty straight forward, just verifying that a product meets the requirements and specifications of the test report. In fact, 5-GHz dynamic frequency selection (DFS) approvals involve a mandatory pre-certification audit to verify that the DFS mechanism is actually compliant with the requirements spelled out in FCC regulations. The audits are currently required and will continue be until both the FCC and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) are satisfied with the level of compliance of the DFS pre-audits and, more importantly, the post-audits.
Still, it would be a mistake to conclude that the FCC is focused solely on the DFS products. There is a mandatory requirement that a TCB (telecommunication certifications body) must perform, at a minimum, pre-compliance audits on two percent or more on the products they certify. Clearly, this requirement increases the chances for any one product to be on the receiving end of an audit. In fact, if a manufacturer uses multiple TCBs, the likelihood of an audit increases proportionally.
The FCC also carries out random audits of products that have received recent TCB grants, and this practice further increases the chance that a system could be audited. Industry Canada has a audit program similar to that of the FCC so again there is a chance of an audit of a product by the agency after the product it reaches the marketplace. In general, these audits focus on electromagnetic compatibility and or radio parameters though some agencies in Canada and Europe are performing specific absorption rate (SAR) audits as well.
NON-COMPLIANCE AUDITS
Non-compliance audits differ from those described above in which the reviews are based on verifying the compliance of a random selection of approved products. Non-compliance audits generally result from complaints in the field coming from consumers, competitors, or even other government agencies. A number of complaints stem from manufacturers watching their competition and then raising questions on everything from the test data and test methods to issues on instructions in the product manuals. Other complaints are from consumers who have an ax to grind with the company, or who have experienced real problems of interference. (Amateur radio operators are good sources for such complaints.)
In some cases, it is the regulators themselves who may see an ad for a product and some assertion in the ad catches their attention. Generally, a manufacturer may find about these audits only after the process and the agency asks for a production system to test. In some cases, the agencies obtain the products from the local electronic super store, and the manufacturer may learn about the problem only after it is found during testing by the agency.
For example, the NTIA did some post audits of DFS detection in products bought off the shelf or from the Internet, and the manufacturers of these non-compliant products first learned about the problem when they received a letter from the FCC. In some cases the letter also contained specific information on fines and penalties.
Not all problems arise from product failures. Some products hit the market without ever being tested. (This situation seems to have happened several times recently with products requiring Class A verification.) Others issues that come to light during audits are incorrect labeling with the wrong FCC ID numbers and incorrect FCC statements in manuals (Class B when the product is Class A)—as well as other issues involving documentation and/or advertising of the product.
WHAT IS THE RISK OF NON-COMPLIANCE?
The issue of non-compliance and how it is addressed varies from agency to agency. In one instance, the FCC found that a TCB had granted an approval in error. The grant was simply set aside until the issue was resolved. In cases where the product should not have been approved, the grant was dismissed. In the United States, the manufacturer of a non-compliant product will generally be fined, and a public notice about the fine will be released. Fines can range from several thousands of dollars to a million dollars or more.
In cases involving willful violation such as the sale of illegal products, additional legal action has been taken such directing that the product be removed from the market. Some agencies such as Industry Canada and the Netherlands Onafhankelijke Posten Telecommuicatie Autoriteit require that a product that fails the SAR test be recalled by the manufacturer on a nationwide basis. Recently, Canada voided the registration of the mobile phone that failed compliance
Sometimes, it is not the manufacturer that gets hit with the enforcement action but the importer or distributor—or in some cases the retail store. In one extreme case a few years ago, the FCC strongly suggested that the company set up a compliance group to address the issue of product compliance, or that it retain a qualified consultant to resolve the problem.
CONCLUSION
It is important to remember that the overall the intent of the many regulatory provisions and actions is to insure the compliance of the products found in the marketplace. The savvy manufacture will grasp that compliance is an ongoing issue that goes far beyond the initial approvals tucked away in a product file.
DAVID A. CASE, NCE, NCT is a Technical Leader for Cisco Systems Compliance and Certification Group. He was a member of the U.S. working group that developed the DFS test procedure and is a member of a number of technical standards working groups.
