Eighty-two percent of FCC-covered electronics testing ran through laboratories in mainland China in 2025, according to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. U.S. labs handled less than 4%. The FCC is scheduled to vote on October 29, 2026, on rules that would change that balance, with a proposed effective date of December 1, 2028, giving manufacturers roughly two years to move qualifying certification work out of China.
The core of the proposal is straightforward: laboratories in countries that do not offer reciprocal access to U.S. testing facilities would lose FCC recognition and eligibility to perform certification work for devices sold in America. Mainland China is the primary target, though the framework applies to any non-reciprocal economy. Critically, the rule focuses on where testing physically happens, not who owns the facility. A Western company operating a lab in Shanghai would face the same restriction as a Chinese-owned lab in the same city.
What the Rule Covers (and What It Doesn’t)
The proposed restrictions target substantive certification work while leaving administrative and research activities untouched.
The restrictions zero in on substantive certification activities: measurements, technical analysis, and the preparation of official test reports. Routine administrative work and research testing outside the certification process would remain exempt under the draft, according to TechSpot.
Existing device approvals would not be automatically invalidated. Existing FCC grants are reported to remain valid, and no retroactive retesting would be required solely because of the new rule.
For future products, manufacturers would need to route certification work through facilities in eligible reciprocal economies. Reported eligible locations include the United States, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and Vietnam. The precise status of each jurisdiction depends on the final rules adopted after the October vote.
What Manufacturers and Consumers Should Expect
The scale of the shift is significant, and smaller manufacturers are likely to feel it most.
The volume behind this proposal is striking. According to the Epoch Times, citing an FCC Office of Engineering and Technology tally, 38,491 of 46,402 FCC equipment-authorization applications in 2025 ran through Chinese laboratories. That figure represents roughly 83% of all applications, which is consistent with the 82% headline figure Carr has cited publicly, with the difference reflecting rounding methods.
Moving certification work away from manufacturing centers could add logistics costs, require earlier scheduling, and stretch approval timelines for new products. Smaller manufacturers are likely to face the steepest challenge, given less negotiating leverage with alternative facilities and fewer established relationships outside China.
For consumers, any impact is expected to be limited on devices already approved. Future hardware could be affected indirectly, through longer waits between product announcements and retail availability, or through higher compliance costs passed on through pricing.
Carr framed the proposal in plainly competitive terms. “Less than 4% of all electronic devices are tested in labs located inside the US,” he said, describing the rules as a way to demand “fair and reciprocal treatment in international commerce,” according to PCMag.
How the FCC Got Here
The October vote is the latest step in a regulatory effort that began with narrower, ownership-focused restrictions in 2025.
In May 2025, the FCC revoked recognition from laboratories connected to blacklisted entities or foreign-adversary governments, with reporting citing approximately 29 affected labs. Most Chinese facilities remained eligible, because those restrictions were tied to ownership and control rather than location.
In April 2026, the FCC advanced a broader framework and opened public comment. The October 29 vote will determine whether those broader principles become enforceable rules, with the December 1, 2028, effective date contingent on adoption and the final text of the order.
The Road Ahead
The rule, if adopted, opens a competitive window for labs outside China, but capacity constraints could define whether the 2028 deadline holds up in practice.
If adopted, the rule creates an opening for testing facilities in Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, and the United States. But opportunity and capacity are different things. Labs in those markets would need to absorb work that currently fills nearly 40,000 annual applications. Whether the transition period is adequate depends entirely on how quickly that infrastructure scales to meet demand.
