Telecom Forum Questions Proposed 'Bad Lab' Rules
The Telecommunication Terminal Industry Forum Association (TAF) on Thursday broadly questioned proposed rules in a May Further NPRM that was part of the FCC’s focus on “bad labs” (see 2505220056 and 2508120011). “The large-scale revocation of laboratory authorizations based on security concerns lacks both technical and practical justification, which will increase the burden on U.S. consumers and cause significant disruption to the global ICT industry,” TAF said in a filing in docket 24-136.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The FNPRM references China’s national intelligence law, TAF said. “It should be noted that comparable legal frameworks exist in numerous other jurisdictions, including the United States,” the group said. Pursuant to the legislation, “Chinese authorities solely collect intelligence pertaining to activities that threaten the national security and interests of the People’s Republic of China, and such provisions do not extend to routine commercial activities or corporate information.”
China's testing market “operates under condition of robust competition, especially regarding FCC certification testing, the process ensures operational transparency through publicly accessible documentation and multi-stakeholder involvement,” TAF said.
The Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association said restrictions shouldn’t apply to test labs “that are physically located in one of those countries but are not owned by, controlled by, or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of a prohibited foreign adversary.” Banning labs based on their location alone, “without looking into who controls them, could unfairly disregard capable, compliant labs from the process,” the group added. An independently run lab is “less of a risk than a domestic lab controlled by a prohibited foreign entity.”