TCB Survey

1. TCB Survey Art Wall awall@atlanticbb.net TCBC Meeting October, 2006

2. Overview • Introduction • List of questions • Information about TCB program • Manufacturer pressure? • Acceptability of laboratory test data? • Quality, integrity and consistency of data? • Improvements to the program? • Elements to included in Code of Practice? • TCB issues (domestic and foreign)? • Summary and questions TCBC Meeting October, 2006

3. Introduction • Contracted by TCBC to develop a “Code of Practice for TCBs” (TCB Code) • First step was to interview most, if not, all TCBs • Interviewed 25 of 27 TCBs, 2 Mfrs & 2 DA’s • Asked a series of 11 plus questions • The following is a summary of answers to those questions (confidentiality maintained) • Only a few real surprises, but interesting nonetheless on how TCBs perceive their part of the TCB program TCBC Meeting October, 2006

4. List of Questions (shortened version) • What are the highlights and attributes of your TCB? • Is the TCB program is working well? Is there room for improvement? • Have manufacturers placed undue pressure on TCB? • Have lab reports been acceptable? • Can the quality of test reports and be improved? • What steps should be taken to improve consistency and quality of the TCB program? • Are there specific suggestions for improving the consistency of grants? • What can the FCC do to improve the TCB program? • Is there a integrity issue with some TCBs and can the TCBC help? • What elements should be included in the “TCB Code?” • Is there a difference in performance or other issues between US and non-US TCBs? TCBC Meeting October, 2006

5. Information about the TCB program • Most TCBs • Are a small business (or a small part of a larger business) • Have a quality system … with many variations • Use the internet for operations • found a niche of products or clients for business model • Some TCBs use approvals to support testing (for others approval is its main business) • Most TCBs have 2 or more reviewers & certifiers … which for some TCBs are interchangeable • Some TCBs have distributed operations using more than location for testing and approvals • A few TCBs cite quality and service as their stated purpose … while others are willing to live with a low error rate TCBC Meeting October, 2006

6. Information about the TCB program (continued) • Several TCBs state that reputation is most important for their operation • Several TCBs perform an internal audit on an annual basis … one even paid for external auditor to ensure quality … the same TCB mentioned that every meeting deals with quality • Several TCBs have clients sign detailed agreements giving expectations, etc. • Several mentioned that they have training for their clients, who for the most part are labs representing manufacturers • Several TCBs have detailed tracking system for handling complaints complete with steps for correcting mistakes • A number of TCBs advertise 7 days for processing applications; whereas, others state approval within 2 days TCBC Meeting October, 2006

7. Information about the TCB program (continued) • Several European & US TCBs state that the majority of devices they approve come from Asia • The manufacturers mentioned that they … • have a number of divisions with multiple plants and locations • use a number of TCBs, but there is some attempt to consolidate TCBs used • accredited lab acts as they agent • need to watch TCB and lab closely • One manufacturer stated that it took him 2 days to review a test report … it had a number of mistakes TCBC Meeting October, 2006

8. Information about the TCB program (continued) • All TCBs and both manufacturers state that • The TCB program works well (several state the program exceeds expectations) • The program opened up the certification process and greatly increases the speed of service • One TCB remarked that the FCC and TCBC have done a remarkable job of organizing and maintaining the program considering the resources • The TCB Council, TCBC training, monthly phone calls were cited as being extremely beneficial • Improvements would include • Release of more products • More enforcement and oversight • Peer review TCBC Meeting October, 2006

9. Information about the TCB program (continued) • Problem areas • Timeliness and quality of answers from FCC • FCC takes too long for unique interpretations • Several TCBs are more inclined to push envelope & make decision without FCC • One TCB doesn’t believe the program will last (not a growth business) • Several TCBs state the program is headed off-shore • KDB is helpful, but needs to be strengthen • Sample audit program, since testing is not fundable and the process leads to minimum review TCBC Meeting October, 2006

10. Information about the TCB program (continued) • Areas for improvement • One European TCB would like to see better dissemination & organization of the FCC Rules, interpretation and policies • Standardize checklists, complete with interpretations • Better guidance for market surveillance • FCC should educate manufacturers and stick to the TCB program • An “exclusion list” tailored to the abilities of the TCB • The SAR program is confusing, at best • The FCC should date all policies and statements TCBC Meeting October, 2006

11. Information about the TCB program (continued) • Manufacturer concerns • TCB evaluators are not necessarily competent or knowledgeable of the FCC Rules • Consistency and quality of approvals • Some TCBs are interpreting the Rules, when question should go to the FCC • There is a need for consistency and exchange of information • TCBs operate in its own self-interest and don’t share information (confirmed by some TCBs) TCBC Meeting October, 2006

12. Manufacturer pressure • Many TCBs report very little pressure from clients (mfrs or labs representing mfrs) • This may not be true with TCBs dealing with Asian labs as their primary customers • Asian labs go to TCBs who provide the best price, speed of service and ask the fewest questions • Several TCBs report losing clients to other TCBs who apparently are not asking questions • Asian clients are trying to manipulate the process • Competition is severe and there is no vender loyalty • Applications used to take two weeks to review; whereas, today clients are demanding same or 2 day service. TCBC Meeting October, 2006

13. Manufacturer pressure (continued) • One TCB reported that Asian Labs are competent … have good report formats … competitive and look for least resistance to obtain approval • Asian manufacturers are demanding fast service, cheap prices and no questions … quality is not important • TCBs who insist on quality report losing clients … one TCB reported that the client came back when it got into trouble • Several TCBs report losing clients to another TCB for the answer they wanted … this is less of an issue for TCBs with an establish or known list of labs • One TCB reported a forged report • One TCB reported that 2-3 clients per year have threaten to go elsewhere, if application is scrutinized TCBC Meeting October, 2006

14. Manufacturer pressure (continued) • One TCB remarked that its own labs have threaten to go another TCB who does not ask questions • Application procedures, according to one TCB, are being cut due to competitive pressure leading to lack of adequate review • One TCB suggested developing a marketing brochure to educate clients to include: • Code of conduct for clients • Reasonable time frame for approval • General rules for engaging a TCB • General information about the program • Expectations and limitation of a TCB TCBC Meeting October, 2006

15. Quality of test reports • TCBs dealing with known labs say the labs are knowledgeable • Several TCBs mentioned that most labs are competent, but some are sloppy and inconsistent tending to repeat the same errors • Only in a few instances has a TCB questioned the integrity of a lab • Labs also do not want to provide a sample and have gone elsewhere as a result • A number of TCBs reported that documentation for test procedures need to be improved…some labs have problems understanding the test procedures, rules and policies TCBC Meeting October, 2006

16. Quality of test reports (continued) • Several TCBs mentioned that labs find the FCC Rules, policies and test procedures are overwhelming and difficult to understand … they want better documentation and a guide for minimum requirements for testing each device • Some TCBs would support an effort to document test procedures. • Several TCBs stated that they provide training to their Labs once a year TCBC Meeting October, 2006

17. Quality of test reports (continued) • Those TCB’s that train and work with labs have less problems • One European TCB recommends that each TCB be responsible for helping test labs to ensure quality • Several TCBs recommended the TCBC work to improve documentation of test procedures • Several TCBs suggested that • Test report should be standardized • There should be a standard format and checklist for applications; e.g., EN300-328 & EN 301-893 • One TCB suggested using the reporting format in 17025 TCBC Meeting October, 2006

18. Quality of test reports (continued) • One manufacturer stated that some labs are good, but the test results need to be reviewed carefully • The other manufacturer said that some labs are not competent for specific tests and don’t know how to perform the test. • Information from the manufacturer is not transferred to the TCB for review • According to the manufacturers, tests performed are not representative of actual operation • Manufacturers suggest the following questions to each applicant • Are the tests performed typical of actual operation? • Has the manufacturer reviewed and concur with the report? • Manufacturers believe that labs need additional guidance and training TCBC Meeting October, 2006

19. Steps to improve TCB program? • One TCB suggested defining minimum criteria or check list for each equipment type • Several TCBs suggested developing a system measuring TCB performance … or at least system for providing feedback on a regular basis … and publicizing the results • Several TCBs and manufacturers want a standardize checklist complete with interpretations and procedures • Manufacturers want TCB consistency and suggested round-robin applications with known problems • One TCB wanted the exclusion list to be more understandable • Additional training and guidance in the application of grant notes would be helpful TCBC Meeting October, 2006

20. Steps to improve TCB program? (continued) • Most TCBs & manufacturers believe equipment categories and grant notes are confusing and inconsistent … standardization of grant notes would improve consistency … especially for RF safety • Several TCBs remarked the information on the grant (equipment category, frequency of operation and grant notes) should be standardized • One TCB suggested a 3rd party (not FCC) review grants • Manufacturers recommended that the type of device (portable or mobile) be placed on grant • Many TCBs state that the FCC should manage the process and do more audits and enforcement … several state there is no consequence for poor performance … manufacturers want more training for the labs and additional enforcement TCBC Meeting October, 2006

21. Steps to improve TCB program? (continued) • FCC actions requested by one or more TCBs • Additional guidelines for completing applications • More training for modular devices • Be more responsive to inquiries • Improve KDB, particularly the search function • More information should be in rules and less reliance on KDB • Publish guidelines • Increase enforcement and audit oversight • Make rules and interpretations more consistent • Make FCC EAP webpage easier to follow • Establish a team (gov. and non-gov.) to discuss new technology issues • Make TCB performance information available on line • Eliminate 5 day grace-period for downloading exhibitions (done) • Provide dummy website (already available) TCBC Meeting October, 2006

22. Steps to improve TCB program? (continued) • FCC actions requested by one or more TCBs (continued) • Develop examination for evaluators • Document and improve test procedures, including inter-modulation testing • Develop examination for evaluators • Reduce, update or eliminate exclusion list • Develop yardstick so TCBs can compare • Provide better documentation (standards and policy statements in a known location) … policy statements should not be left in presentations • FCC presentations should be updated (since many are now confusing, especially RFI exposure) • Publish set-asides and complaints • Provide mechanism for tracking antenna changes and grant note changes when there are permissive changes TCBC Meeting October, 2006

23. TCB integrity issues and TCBC? • Many TCBs are not aware of real abuse of the program … other stated that there is abuse … dismissals are an indication of abuse • Factors affecting consistency, according to one European TCB • Price • Speed • Financial pressure • Test lab and manufacturer pressure • Complexity of the Rules • Many TCBs do not believe the TCBC cannot police TCBs … that job should be left to the FCC … one TCB stated that manufacturers should provide peer review … one TCB mentioned that the TCBC should develop and recommend the use of guidance notes for use by all TCBs TCBC Meeting October, 2006

24. TCB integrity issues and TCBC? (continued) • A few TCBs believe TCBC involvement is questionable and will promote mediocrity • Several TCBs agree that the TCBC should be proactive roll, as it is doing, in providing opportunities for training, cooperation & support with FCC and promoting the “code of practice” • One TCB wants the TCBC to work with the TCB after it gets into trouble with the FCC • One TCB wants a TCBC round-table to interpret the Rules without the FCC • Several TCBs recommended “quality management” training with suggesting for resolving problem audits • Several TCBs argued that the TCBC is proactive and doing a great job TCBC Meeting October, 2006

25. Input to TCB Code? • Most TCBs are unclear how the “Code” would be implemented … a number of TCBs stated the it should be incorporated into the TCB program • One or more TCBs mentioned the following for the “Code” • Specific elements of Guide 65 (ethics, impartiality, transparency & organization structure) • Mission statement (vision of public good) • Internal audits • Training • Seeking FCC guidance when necessary • Timeliness in uploading exhibitions (done) TCBC Meeting October, 2006

26. Input to TCB Code? (continued) • One or TCBs mentioned the following for the “Code” (continued) • Publishing price list with conditions for reduction • Process for handling undue manufacturer pressure • A well defined process to follow • A guidance document for reviewing applications • Surveillance testing guidance • Quality statement about fixing problems • Minimum application review time (e.g., 5 days) • Consequences for poor performers • Approve only devices for which TCB and Lab has competence • FCC guidance of relationship with clients • Teeth in the “Code” … it should be self-regulating • Independence from clients and test labs TCBC Meeting October, 2006

27. TCB issues (foreign & domestic)? • A number of TCBs mentioned that they now believe there is no difference between domestic and European TCBs • A few TCBs believe there is a difference in the requirement and evaluations of European TCBs … one US TCB believes there are some integrity issues with some foreign TCBs • One European DA stated that they give assessments every 3 years with annual surveillance audits … he also stated there is no difference between EN45011 and Guide 65, but there is a big difference in the interpretation documents • Manufacturers believe there is a difference with foreign TCBs in their understanding of the Rules and experience with the US system • One European TCB believes there is a perception that the FCC scrutinizes foreign TCBs more than domestic TCBs TCBC Meeting October, 2006

28. TCB issues (foreign & domestic)? (continued) • Most TCBs dealing with Asian labs are very concerned with prospect of Asian TCBs. • One TCB reported there is a communication and cultural barriers with overseas labs, especially Asian labs • A number of TCBs expressed a concern with the MRA process, especially with the Asian economies due to the perceived lack of control and enforcement TCBC Meeting October, 2006

29. TCB issues (foreign & domestic)? (continued) • Several TCBs requested more TCBC meetings on the West Coast … European TCBs requested TCBC meetings in Europe • Two TCBs questioned the competency of some auditors … implying that more training and guidance may be needed • Another TCB suggested that domestic and foreign accreditors should talk with one another to develop a more consistent process • One TCB mentioned that auditors should assess the TCB, but keep their opinions to themselves … several TCBs stated that more qualified auditors are needed and the assessment should emphasize technical, as well as, quality issues • Also, there should be a better process for monitoring evaluators and certifiers TCBC Meeting October, 2006

30. Summary (My impression and comments) • While no real surprises for me in talking with TCBs and manufacturers, it was interesting to learn how TCBs operate and how they perceive their role in the FCC equipment approval program • Most TCBs want the program to succeed and are willing to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure a consistent well run program, as long as all TCBs play by the same rules • A key element and current weakness of the program is the competency of test labs … additional training and documenting the test procedures would be extremely helpful … TCBs should also work with Labs to improve consistency of test results • The FCC and all TCBs should take appropriate step to ensure that clients do not manipulate the system … a TCB who fails to provide an adequate or consistent review of an application should be penalized • There are also a number TCB recommendations that the FCC and accreditors may want to take into consideration to help the TCBs • The TCB “Code” was formulated considering all the comments in this survey TCBC Meeting October, 2006

31. Thank You Art Wall Radio Regulatory Consultants, Inc. awall@atlanticbb.net TCBC Meeting October, 2006