Country

Spring-2025 TCBC Workshop Recap

Back

The Spring-2025 TCBC Workshop was recently held as a three-day event packed with presentations covering a wide range of topics relevant to wireless device manufacturers and other stakeholders. 

Our notes are now available, capturing the essential information from the ISED presentations (Day 1) and FCC-day (Day 2) of the event. 

ISED Updates

In essence, attending the workshop provided valuable real-time updates, in-depth explanations, opportunities for clarification through questions, and a first look at new tools and policy directions from ISED. From updates on cybersecurity labeling for IoT devices to changes in data referencing and RF exposure guidelines, the FCC provided crucial insights into the evolving regulatory landscape.  

FCC Updates

1. IoT Cyber Labeling

The FCC adopted a Report and Order (R&O) on March 15, 2024, establishing a voluntary cybersecurity labeling program for wireless consumer Internet of Things (IoT) products. The FCC will act as the program owner and set the requirements for products to qualify for the FCC IoT Label. This label will inform consumers that the product meets minimum cybersecurity standards.

The FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) is collaborating with Cybersecurity Label Administrators (CLAs) and other stakeholders to develop the program details. UL Solutions has been selected as the lead administrator. UL has also reviewed applications from entities interested in participating in the stakeholder process and established three committees to develop recommendations on:

PSHSB will consider UL’s recommendations and issue Public Notices seeking comment. The PSHSB will then review the record and adopt recommendations, including standards and testing procedures, into the FCC’s rules. PSHSB will also work with accrediting bodies to establish the FCC scope of accreditation for CLAs and CyberLABs (test labs). CLAs and CyberLABs will need to obtain accreditation to ISO standards 17065 and 17025, respectively, and the FCC scope.

Manufacturers will have their products tested by recognized CyberLABs and then submit applications to CLAs, who will review the application and test reports to approve or deny the use of the FCC label. The program is currently focused on consumer wireless products and excludes categories regulated by other agencies, such as medical devices and motor vehicles. The FCC is also considering international reciprocal recognition of cyber standards and labels, including discussions with the EU regarding programs like the CRA.

2. Administrative Notes and Publication Update

Jim Szeliga from the Laboratory Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, provided updates on recent FCC publications. Key publications highlighted include:

The presentation also provided statistics on the number of inquiries received by the Laboratory Division in 2024 (over 5700) and categorized them. An explanation of Persistent Inquiry Acceptance (PIA) exhibits required for Standard Access Points in the 6 GHz band was given, emphasizing the need for a clear narrative in the justification report describing the geolocation method and the establishment of the 95% confidence area. Requirements for OBU Geofencing in the 6 GHz band were also outlined, including the need for a narrative describing the geofencing mechanism and ensuring the GNSS system uses only U.S. licensed or approved satellites. Updates on Wireless Handset Hearing Aid Compatibility (HAC) requirements based on Report and Order FCC 24-112 were provided, noting the transition to ANSI C63.19-2019 compliance.

3. Data Referencing

Alfonso Tarditi presented on the revision of KDB 484596 D01 “Referencing Test Data” v03. The main changes include a major restructuring, with data referencing now limited to component removal (depopulation only). ECR inquiries are no longer required for data referencing proposals, and the review is fully performed by the TCB. Data referencing is only for new FCC IDs, not for different models or SKUs under the same ID. The parent device must be the fully populated version. Each variant must correspond to a separate FCC ID. The exhibits in TCB filings must clearly differentiate referenced data from new testing, and data referencing is only permitted for devices under the same Grantee code.

Several examples of acceptable and non-acceptable variants were discussed, with emphasis on depopulation being the key criterion. The importance of clear documentation for data referencing to facilitate review by TCBs and the FCC for market surveillance was highlighted. The KDB provides details on the steps required for TCBs to file an application using data referencing. A transition period for the new version (v03, published 03/21/2025) was mentioned, allowing its immediate use. However, using the older procedure (v02r03) still requires ECR KDB inquiries.

Discussions during the Q&A session clarified that this new data referencing KDB is specifically for depopulation scenarios and does not cover all instances of data reuse, such as permissive changes or changes in FCC ID with host-level modules.

4. Wireless Power Transfer (WPT)

A presentation covered clarifications on the applicability of KDB 680106 regarding RF exposure considerations for all RF devices, not just WPT devices, especially those operating below 4 MHz or with RF exposure limits below 100 kHz. It also addressed the validation of field estimations for WPT devices, recommending validation points be relatively close to the device under test (DUT). The concept of collocated devices, particularly wireless battery packs charging phones, was discussed, emphasizing that each device is evaluated independently in its intended operating environment without superimposing fields from other devices not being tested. The authorization of WPT devices under Part 15 and Part 18 was also covered, noting that Part 15 authorization for WPT at a distance has always been allowed without special concerns. Certain low-power WPT devices meeting specific conditions in the KDB can skip the ECR process.

5. EMC Updates

Dusmantha Tennakoon provided updates related to EMC. Key topics included:

6. Post Market Surveillance

Dusmantha Tennakoon also presented on TCB surveillance activities. The number of equipment authorizations continues to increase. An overview of 2024 surveillance data was provided, noting the number of grants, TCB participation, and instances where TCBs did not meet requirements, often due to incorrectly calculating the number of samples tested. Observations included the overall increase in authorizations and common errors in TCB surveillance summaries, particularly regarding the number of applications tested for EMC. The OET lab is increasing desk audits and continuing post-market surveillance testing in EMC, RF Exposure, and HAC, while also acquiring new testing capabilities. TCBs are expected to notify grantees about the requirement for production samples for surveillance testing and should use the sample selection criteria in KDB 6100077 D01. Obtaining production samples (not lab samples) for testing is crucial, and TCBs should explore methods like requesting vouchers or purchasing from the marketplace. Post-market surveillance testing by FCC-recognized labs can be done in countries with Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs).

7. RF Exposure PAG Updates

Alfonso Tarditi discussed updates to RF Exposure PAG items.

8. Interim Simplified RFX Guidance for Portable Devices

Alfonso Tarditi presented interim simplified guidance for RF exposure testing of portable devices under §2.1093, intended as an alternative to some content in KDB publications 447498, 616217, and 648474. Key changes include:

This guidance aims to ensure consistency across various portable devices while minimally deviating from current procedures.

9. Review of TCB PAG Submissions

Len Knight reviewed common issues found in tagged or untagged PAG submissions. Key points included:

Dynamic Time Averaging (TAS) Mechanisms: For devices employing TAS, a complete, detailed, and substantial description of the mechanism is required in the operational description to validate the SAR test report.

UN6GHz Test Reduction: Guidance on test reduction for partial RUs and full RUs is available in previous TCB workshop presentations. Due to the large bandwidth, PSD measurements of partial RUs in one part of the band may not represent another part. Clear documentation of test reduction methods, including supporting plots for power spectral density, is needed.

UN6GHz In-Band Emissions Mask: The measurement method is in section J of KDB 987594 D02. For larger bandwidths and partial RUs, compliance is hard to determine by “eyeballing” plots; using a spectrum analyzer with a Pass/Fail function is preferred.

Contention Based Protocol (CBP): The CBP section of the test report must clearly state if channel puncturing or bandwidth reduction is used for incumbent avoidance (channel puncturing should be for network optimization, not incumbent avoidance).

Channel Prioritization: For VLP devices in the 6 GHz band, the operational description must detail how the device prioritizes frequencies above 6105 GHz. Simply stating the chipset has built-in prioritization is insufficient.

General Concerns (RBW/VBW): Software capture programs should display resolution bandwidth (RBW) and video bandwidth (VBW) as these are vital for confirming measurement procedures. These values should be readily available near the plots.

Power and PSD EIRP Tables: For UN6GHz devices with EIRP limits, tabular summaries should include both power and antenna gain. For MIMO devices, values from all chains and a summation should be included.

Modular Approval Cover Letter: A brief, clear description of each modular requirement, whether it is met, and how, is necessary. If the module grantee is not the manufacturer of the end product, this must be clearly stated in the cover letter and user manual. A sensor test plan should be included, even if the module grantee and end product manufacturer are the same.