Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2337 

final conditional approval action), of a 

new District rule that would add new 

limits or other requirements if an RFP 

milestone is not met or if Western 

Nevada County fails to attain the 2008 

ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve, or 

conditionally approve, state plans as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: December 21, 2020. 

John Busterud, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28885 Filed 1–11–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 2 and 95 

[ET Docket No. 20–382; FCC 20–180; FRS 

17351] 

Allowing Earlier Equipment Marketing 

and Importation Opportunities 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to 

update its radiofrequency (RF) device 

marketing and importation rules in 

order to allow equipment manufacturers 

to better gauge consumer interest and 

prepare for new product launches. In 

particular, the Commission proposes 

limited exceptions to its requirement 

that RF devices receive equipment 

authorization prior to marketing in or 

importation to the United States and it 

seeks comment on the conditions 

necessary to ensure that parties who 

utilize such exceptions ultimately bring 

such devices into full compliance with 

the Commission’s equipment 

authorization rules. 

DATES: Comments are due February 11, 

2021. Reply comments are due February 

26, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Butler, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, 202–418–2702, 

Brian.Butler@fcc.gov, or Thomas Struble 

at 202–418–2470 or Thomas.Struble@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 20– 

180, ET Docket No. 20–382, adopted 

December 10, 2020, and released 

December 10, 2020. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection and can be downloaded at: 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fccproposes-rules-expedite-release-newdevices-and-technologies-0 or by using 

the search function for ET Docket No. 

20–382 on the Commission’s ECFS web 

page at www.fcc.gov/ecfs. 

Synopsis 

1. Discussion. In June 2020 CTA filed 

a petition seeking modification of the 

equipment authorization rules 

pertaining to the marketing and 

importation of radiofrequency devices. 

An FCC-issued Public Notice seeking 

comment on CTA’s petition yielded 

eight comments and two reply 

comments. The Commission took this 

record into consideration when it issued 

this rulemaking proposal. The 

Commission observed that the existing 

rules often limit the ability of device 

manufacturers to market and import 

radiofrequency devices in the most 

efficient and cost-effective manner and 

proposed specific rule changes that 

would allow device manufacturers to 

take full advantage of modern marketing 

and importation practices. Specifically, 

the proposals relate to the marketing 

and importation of radiofrequency 

devices. Although CTA also asked the 

Commission to grant a rule waiver to 

permit conditional sales to consumers 

during the pendency of the rulemaking 

proceeding and other parties asked for 

similar action, the Commission 

determined that an interim waiver was 

not warranted in this case. The 

Commission notes that it would need to 

consider several complex issues before 

allowing conditional sales of 

radiofrequency devices, or additional 

imports of radiofrequency devices, prior 

to the receipt of equipment 

authorization. 

2. The Commission’s equipment 

authorization rules are based on Section 

302 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C. 302a, 

which gives the Commission authority 

to make reasonable regulations 

governing the interference potential of 

devices that emit radiofrequency energy 

and can cause harm to consumers or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2338 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

other radio operations. The Commission 

uses the equipment authorization 

program, codified in Part 2 of its rules, 

47 CFR part 2, to ensure that 

radiofrequency devices comply with its 

technical and equipment authorization 

requirements before they can be 

marketed in or imported to the United 

States. There are two different approval 

procedures for equipment 

authorization—Certification and 

Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity 

(SDoC). Certification, the most rigorous 

approval process for radiofrequency 

devices, results in an equipment 

authorization issued by an FCCrecognized Telecommunication 

Certification Body (TCB) based on an 

evaluation of the supporting 

documentation and test data submitted 

to the TCB. SDoC is a procedure that 

requires the party responsible for 

compliance (who must be located in the 

United States) to ensure that the 

equipment complies with the 

appropriate technical standards. Unlike 

with Certification, equipment 

authorized under the SDoC procedure is 

not listed in a Commission database. 

3. Subpart I of part 2 of the 

Commission’s rules sets out the 

conditions under which radiofrequency 

devices that are capable of causing harm 

to consumers or other radio operations 

may be marketed in the United States. 

Marketing is broadly defined to include 

‘‘sale or lease, or offering for sale or 

lease, including advertising for sale or 

lease, or importation, shipment, or 

distribution for the purpose of selling or 

leasing or offering for sale or lease.’’ 47 

CFR 2.803(a). In general, parties may not 

market radiofrequency devices unless 

the devices have been properly 

authorized or otherwise comply with all 

applicable technical, labeling, 

identification, and administrative 

requirements. 47 CFR 2.803(b). An 

existing limited exception permits 

conditional sales contracts—that is, 

sales whereby the actual delivery of the 

product to the buyer is postponed—to 

wholesalers and retailers. The 

Commission proposes to modernize its 

rules to also allow conditional sales, but 

not delivery, of radiofrequency devices 

to consumers prior to authorization. 

4. The Commission expresses belief 

that the marketplace and the consumer 

experience have changed such that there 

is good reason to modify the rules to 

allow for some conditional sales. These 

reasons include that such sales would 

allow manufacturers to better gauge 

consumer interest and demand, would 

improve supply-chain management and 

thus reduce waste, and would support 

the highly competitive communications 

market where the development and life 

cycles of new devices are short. The 

Commission further recognizes that the 

its proposal has the potential to better 

align its processes with popular 

consumer expectations and noted CTA’s 

claim that pre-ordering consumer goods 

has become commonplace. The 

Commission seeks comment on its 

observations and asks whether there are 

other benefits or risks associated with 

the proposed marketing rule that it had 

not identified. The Commission asks if 

expanding the scope of marketing to 

include conditional sales of 

radiofrequency devices directly to 

consumers would yield the anticipated 

benefits for industry and consumers and 

whether there are other actions the FCC 

could take that would more effectively 

meet its objective. 

5. The Commission also recognizes 

the continuing importance of ensuring 

that unauthorized radiofrequency 

devices do not reach consumers where 

they could potentially cause harm. As a 

fundamental matter, the Commission 

proposes to prohibit the delivery of 

radiofrequency devices to consumers 

prior to authorization. The Commission 

notes that its rules are designed to 

prevent the sale and operation of noncompliant devices, and that 

manufacturers and vendors who market 

and deliver non-compliant devices to 

purchasers in the United States, as well 

as domestic consumers who operate 

non-compliant devices, can be held 

liable for violating these rules. 

6. The Commission seeks comment on 

whether there are additional safeguards 

that it should implement. Are there 

certain types of devices for which 

conditional sales to consumers would 

not be appropriate? These could include 

devices designed to operate in particular 

frequency bands where extensive preoperation coordination is required; 

equipment designed for commercial 

operation that could pose a greater risk 

of harmful interference or harm to 

persons if not installed properly; and 

medical or other equipment that require 

review or approval by other regulatory 

bodies. How can the Commission 

prevent devices that have no likelihood 

of being approved from being marketed? 

Should equipment that could only 

operate under a Commission waiver be 

prohibited from marketing prior to a 

waiver being granted? The Commission 

recognizes that certain types of devices 

are used to ensure the safety of life and 

property on board ships and aircraft. 

Should the Commission exclude those 

types of devices? If not, the Commission 

notes that certain rules in parts 80, 87, 

and 95 of the Commission’s rules may 

need to be adjusted and proposed to 

revise these rules accordingly. To this 

end, the Commission identifies Section 

95.391, 47 CFR 95.391, and seeks 

comment on whether other rules, such 

as those provided under Sections 

80.1061, 87.147, and 95.2991, 47 CFR 

80.1061, 87.147, and 95.2991, would 

also need to be revised or clarified. The 

Commission asks whether there are 

other specific devices subject to certain 

rules that might also need to be 

excluded and directed commenters to be 

specific in detailing which rules and 

what types of equipment would be 

implicated, and why these would need 

to be treated differently. 

7. The Commission’s proposed rule 

would require the prospective buyer to 

be advised at the time of marketing the 

conditional sale that the equipment is 

subject to the Commission’s rules and 

delivery to the buyer is contingent upon 

compliance with the applicable 

equipment authorization and technical 

requirements. The Commission asks 

whether it should require the seller to 

make additional disclosures throughout 

the marketing and sales process, 

including up to the time of delivery, 

noting that TechFreedom had suggested 

that the Commission require any seller 

to display specific language warning 

potential customers that they are preordering a device that is not yet certified 

under the Commission’s rules, and it 

ultimately may never be delivered. The 

Commission proposes that sellers 

should be required to prominently 

display language clarifying the 

conditional nature of a sale at the time 

of offer, as set forth in the proposed 

rules. 

8. The Commission asks whether 

there are other disclosures that sellers 

should make when marketing 

radiofrequency devices to consumers 

prior to equipment authorization. 

Should the Commission require sellers 

to provide information on how to seek 

a refund in the event the device does 

not receive authorization? If so, how 

should the seller provide this 

information? How would consumers be 

notified that authorization was not 

granted, and that the devices will not be 

delivered? What records of such notice 

are needed? Should the Commission 

require online marketplaces to ensure 

all advertisements of devices marketed 

through conditional sales include the 

required disclosures? If unique 

identifying information (e.g., model 

numbers, expected FCC ID) is known at 

the time of marketing, should the 

Commission require that information to 

be disclosed in online advertisements? 

9. The Commission asks if it should 

require manufacturers to include a label 

on device packaging noting that it shall 

not be delivered to consumers prior to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2339 

obtaining equipment authorization and, 

if so, how it should implement this 

requirement as any such label notice 

would only have temporary 

applicability. The Commission asks 

what information should be included on 

the label and whether there are other 

steps the Commission could take to 

ensure that all parties are fully aware 

that device delivery is prohibited prior 

to authorization. 

10. The Commission asks if it should 

impose particular recordkeeping 

requirements on the manufacturer so 

that such equipment can be accounted 

for if equipment authorization is 

ultimately not granted or enforcement 

action needs to be taken. If so, the 

Commission proposes to require that the 

manufacturer retain these records and 

provide them to the Commission upon 

request; it further asks what time period 

would be appropriate. The Commission 

also asks if the seller should be required 

to provide the Commission with a 

monthly update on the number of units 

pre-ordered, and what requirements for 

maintaining a designated agent or point 

of contact based in the United States 

would be appropriate. 

11. The Commission asks what effect 

its proposal might have on its 

enforcement activities. Acknowledging 

that its proposal could lead to situations 

that might upset consumers’ 

expectations, the Commission asks what 

scenarios could cause problems and 

seeks comment on whether it should 

adopt specific rules to address any 

potential harms that may result from 

allowing conditional sales of 

radiofrequency devices to consumers. 

For example, if equipment authorization 

is not granted, what actions should be 

required of the manufacturer to ensure 

that unauthorized equipment is not 

made available to consumers? If an 

unauthorized device is delivered to a 

consumer prior to receipt of the 

equipment authorization, what are the 

appropriate sanctions? What should the 

base forfeiture be for such violations? 

Should the forfeiture be based on the 

number of unauthorized units that are 

delivered? Should the Commission deny 

future equipment authorization 

applications from grantees who deliver 

unauthorized devices to consumers, 

either directly or indirectly through a 

third-party retailer? Should the 

Commission require additional 

protections to prevent potential harm 

from online vendors or from overseas 

vendors? What would those protections 

look like? If a manufacturer delivers a 

device that has failed to receive 

authorization, should domestic 

consumers who operate the noncompliant device be liable for violating 

the Commission’s rules? The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

questions as well as any other 

enforcement measures that may be 

appropriate. 

12. The Commission seeks comment 

on the government’s role when a 

conditionally sold radiofrequency 

device cannot be delivered and 

consumers may be entitled to a refund 

or similar remedy under the sales 

agreement. The Commission asks if 

there were actions it could take to set 

appropriate consumer expectations, 

direct consumers to appropriate 

resources, and avoid becoming 

overwhelmed with general questions 

and complaints for which other agencies 

or entities may be a more appropriate 

contact. Should sellers make additional 

product and contact information readily 

available—such as on their websites or 

that of a relevant industry trade group 

(such as CTA), or as a specific 

disclosure to the Commission—to make 

it easier to identify what a caller is 

talking about and where they should 

direct their concerns? The Commission 

asks about the role of the Federal Trade 

Commission, state attorneys general, or 

other enforcement entities outside of the 

Commission in providing consumer 

relief. Are these the best authorities for 

redressing potential consumer injuries 

from conditional sales of radiofrequency 

devices? How should the information 

about these authorities be provided to 

consumers? What role, if any, should 

the Commission have in providing this 

information to consumers? What role, if 

any, should the Commission have in 

assisting other official bodies in seeking 

redress for consumers? Should the 

Commission make contact information 

available on its website to identify 

where consumers should direct their 

concerns? The Commission tentatively 

concludes that adequate remedies exist 

for contractual and similar harms that 

are external to the Commission and 

seeks comment on this observation. The 

Commission asks if it should establish 

a memorandum of understanding with 

the Federal Trade Commission to share 

information on potential violations or 

best practices in this area, as it has done 

in the past to facilitate coordination on 

issues that span multiple jurisdictions. 

13. The Commission notes that its 

proposed rule would retain the existing 

reference to ‘‘manufacturers’’ entering 

into conditional sales contracts, but 

seeks comment on CTA’s request that, 

‘‘[t]o the extent entities become 

responsible for a device’s FCC 

compliance, those ‘responsible parties’ 

also should be permitted to engage in 

conditional sales with consumers.’’ The 

Commission recognizes that 

‘‘manufacturers’’ may be too limiting for 

the wide range of creators and 

innovators who are likely to take 

advantage of conditional sales of 

radiofrequency devices to consumers, 

but was not sure that CTA’s suggested 

addition of ‘‘responsible parties, as 

defined in Section 2.909 [of the 

Commission’s rules]’’ was the most 

appropriate way to expand the scope of 

the exemption because that rule 

addresses the chain of responsibility for 

the equipment authorization process. 

For certain conditional sales situations, 

such as the beginning stages of a 

Kickstarter campaign, the seller may 

neither be a ‘‘manufacturer’’ nor a 

‘‘responsible party’’ for purposes of the 

Commission’s Part 2 rules; indeed, for 

equipment in the conceptual stage, the 

seller may not have even begun the 

equipment authorization process. The 

Commission asks how it should account 

for such sellers. Alternately, are there 

benefits or risks to retaining the existing 

limitation to manufacturers? Would 

doing so, for example, help ensure that 

unauthorized and non-compliant 

radiofrequency devices do not make 

their way to consumers and cause harm? 

14. The Commission did not propose 

to change Section 2.803(c)(2)(ii), 47 CFR 

2.803(c)(2)(ii), as CTA suggested in its 

petition. The Commission states that 

that this is a separate provision that 

allows limited marketing, in the form of 

sales, to a narrow class of specialized 

entities and that it explicitly prohibits 

the offering for sale to other parties or 

to end users located in a residential 

environment. The Commission states 

that it did not believe it would be 

necessary to change this portion of the 

rule to satisfy its discrete objective and 

that doing so might actually eliminate 

an important avenue for limited 

marketing that exists outside the 

conditional sales contract context. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

conclusion. The Commission also notes 

that CTA proposed replacing this 

section with language that would allow 

manufacturers to enter into contracts for 

importation and preparatory activities 

prior to sale. The Commission states 

that it did not believe that such 

activities constitute ‘‘marketing’’ that 

would be prohibited if not explicitly 

permitted under the conditional sales 

contract rule, but seeks comment from 

parties that might hold a different view. 

15. Finally, the Commission asks 

about the relative costs and benefits of 

its proposal to modify the marketing 

rule. Can the benefits of allowing 

conditional sales of radiofrequency 

devices be quantified in terms of cost 

savings to equipment developers and 

manufacturers? How would this rule 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2340 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

change affect the development time for 

devices and how long it takes to get new 

innovative devices to market? How 

should conditional sales of goods and 

services pre-sold in other contexts 

inform the Commission’s analysis of 

conditional sales for radiofrequency 

devices? The Commission encourages 

commenters to provide data on how 

common conditional sales are and, to 

the extent possible, quantify the benefits 

such conditional sales yield for both 

industry and consumers. What would be 

the costs and benefits of expanding 

conditional sales beyond manufacturers 

to include a broader class of responsible 

parties? What would be the costs and 

benefits of the proposals for record 

keeping of authorized and unauthorized 

equipment? How often do crowdfunding campaigns, like those on 

Kickstarter and other platforms, result 

in technology products being delivered 

to consumers? What are the average 

refund rates for unsuccessful crowdfunding or pre-sale events featuring a 

technology product that is ultimately 

not brought to market? 

16. Subpart K of part 2 of the 

Commission’s rules sets out the 

conditions under which radiofrequency 

devices may be imported into the 

United States. These rules are designed 

to provide assurance that 

radiofrequency devices brought into the 

United States comply with the technical 

standards that the Commission has 

developed to minimize the potential for 

harm to consumers or other radio 

operations. These rules also recognize 

narrowly defined conditions where 

equipment that has not completed the 

Commission’s equipment authorization 

process nevertheless may be imported 

under controlled circumstances, such as 

for compliance testing, repair, or use by 

the Federal government. The 

Commission proposes to allow a limited 

number of radiofrequency devices 

subject to Certification to be imported 

into the United States prior to 

equipment authorization for pre-sale 

activities, including imaging, packaging, 

and delivery to retail locations, by 

adding a new condition under which 

limited quantities of radiofrequency 

devices are permitted to be imported. 

The Commission states that the proposal 

would allow device manufacturers to 

better prepare for new product launches 

while guarding against the proliferation 

of unauthorized and non-compliant 

devices that might increase the risk of 

causing harm to consumers or other 

radio operations. 

17. The Commission states that it 

believes that its proposal could provide 

substantial benefits to device 

manufacturers and retailers that operate 

in a marketplace characterized by outof-country production of many 

radiofrequency devices, shortened 

product cycles, and the importance of 

quickly familiarizing consumers with 

new electronic devices. The 

Commission says the proposed change 

would allow consumers to see and 

examine devices more quickly to allow 

them to make more timely purchase 

decisions and will assist sales associates 

who need to become familiar with the 

features associated with mobile 5G 

devices, Internet of Things devices, and 

augmented reality and virtual reality 

devices once those devices are Certified 

and may be operated. Facilitating an 

accelerated rollout of such devices, the 

Commission asserted, is an important 

way to maintain the United States’ 

global leadership in these industries. 

18. The Commission states that it 

must continue to protect against the 

possibility of unauthorized devices 

making their way to consumers and 

causing harm to consumers or other 

radio operations. The Commission says 

that it believes that the proposal would 

not fundamentally change the general 

importation practice, in which the 

overwhelming majority of 

radiofrequency devices that are 

imported will satisfy the condition that 

an equipment authorization has already 

been obtained, and seeks comment on 

this observation. The Commission also 

notes that the proposal would only 

apply to devices subject to Certification, 

under which devices are subject to an 

authorization process that involves 

rigorous review by a TCB and listing in 

a Commission database, which should 

make importers well equipped to satisfy 

the controls placed in the proposed 

importation condition. The Commission 

states that there is no compelling reason 

to provide for pre-authorization 

importation of devices that are approved 

under SDoC, which is a self-certification 

process that gives the manufacturer 

substantially greater control over the 

timing of the equipment authorization 

process. Because the proposed rule 

would only allow for specified pre-sale 

activities, which explicitly exclude 

marketing and operation, the 

Commission asks if its proposed 

definition of pre-sale activities is 

appropriate. Would this definition of 

pre-sale activities conflict with other 

rules, including the proposed rule 

discussed above to allow marketing of 

devices prior to authorization? Are there 

other pre-sale activities that should be 

included or excluded? Should operation 

by a limited class of parties (such as 

agents of the manufacturer) be allowed 

or prohibited, and if allowed, under 

what circumstances and how should 

those parties be defined? 

19. The Commission states that it will 

need to provide additional safeguards as 

part of any final rules it adopts. The 

Commission first seeks comment on 

specific safeguards based on what CTA 

had identified in its petition. The 

Commission asks if it should limit the 

number of radiofrequency devices that 

can be imported for pre-sale activities to 

4,000, which would be a nationwide 

total as opposed to a limit on each 

shipment of devices imported into the 

United States. The Commission asks if 

specific controls are needed to ensure 

manufacturers cannot exceed this limit 

by, for example, making separate 4,000- 

unit shipments through multiple ports 

of entry. If so, what controls would be 

needed? The proposed rule would also 

codify a method to exceed this number 

by providing for written approval to be 

obtained from the Commission’s Chief 

Engineer, which is consistent with the 

approach the Commission has taken in 

other situations. Should this written 

approval be made public? Would this 

numerical limitation, with a provision 

for allowing a greater number of 

devices, provide a suitable balance 

between meeting manufacturer and 

importer needs and limiting the number 

of unauthorized devices that may be 

imported under this condition? The 

Commission notes some commenters 

discussed the need for a larger number 

and asks, for these commenters, if 8,000 

would be sufficient. The Commission 

also asks if, given that thousands of 

devices are granted Certification each 

year, a smaller limit would result in a 

meaningful reduction in the risk of 

unauthorized devices being imported. 

The Commission asks commenters 

addressing this matter to provide 

specific data to justify their suggested 

limit. 

20. The Commission seeks comment 

on implementing a requirement that 

manufacturers using the proposed 

importation exception must have a 

reasonable basis to believe authorization 

will be granted within 30 days of 

importation. Is 30 days an appropriate 

length of time? Would a longer or 

shorter timeline for obtaining 

authorization be appropriate here? What 

does it mean for a manufacturer to have 

a reasonable basis to believe 

authorization will be obtained? Are 

there particular elements that must 

make up such determination? For 

example, would a belief that 

authorization will be obtained within 30 

days be reasonable only if a 

manufacturer has filed an equipment 

authorization application with a TCB? 

Are achieving or performing other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2341 

milestones in the authorization process 

appropriate measures of reasonableness? 

Should the manufacturer be required to 

request permission in the context of the 

authorization application process to 

import devices under this proposed 

rule? Do existing Commission processes, 

like pre-approval guidance for TCBs or 

waiver requests, provide manufacturers 

with a sufficient general indication of 

timeframe to allow ascertainment of 

‘‘reasonable belief’’ under this proposed 

rule? Should the novelty of a device or 

its features factor into whether an 

expectation of approval is reasonable? 

Should the Commission consider the 

past experience of the manufacturer in 

obtaining equipment Certifications as 

relevant to this determination? Would 

accounting for past experience, or lack 

thereof, discourage small businesses or 

new entrants from taking advantage of 

this new rule? The Commission also 

asks if it should require the 

manufacturer to document, and provide 

such documentation to the Commission 

upon request, the basis for its 

determination of reasonableness prior to 

importing the devices. If so, how long 

should the manufacturer be required to 

retain this documentation? To the extent 

that such documentation may be 

important for compliance and 

enforcement purposes, it proposed that 

manufacturers be required to maintain 

this information for five years and 

provide it to the Commission upon 

request. Would a longer or shorter 

timeframe be more appropriate for 

retaining this information? If so, how 

long should the information be retained 

and why? Finally, what consequences 

would be suitable for cases where the 

manufacturer’s basis to believe 

authorization will be obtained cannot be 

considered ‘‘reasonable,’’ or if 

authorization is not obtained within 30 

days (or another time period, if that 

would be more appropriate)? 

21. The Commission seeks comment 

on the use of a temporary device label 

and asks how such a requirement would 

be implemented and the benefits it 

could provide. The Commission 

discusses CTA’s suggestion that the 

temporary labels would provide notice 

of the Commission’s rules—namely, that 

devices cannot be displayed, operated, 

or sold prior to FCC authorization. The 

Commission asks what information 

should be required on these labels. 

Should the Commission require use of 

the specific language CTA identifies? 

Would such information be appropriate 

and adequate in this case? Should other 

information be required here, such as 

the model numbers or expected FCC IDs 

associated with the devices? Should the 

temporary labels indicate the 

administrative, civil, and criminal 

penalties that can result from 

unauthorized operation of 

radiofrequency devices? Should the 

manufacturer or importer be required to 

have a designated point of contact 

indicated on the temporary labels and, 

if so, should the contact be required to 

be United States-based? The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the temporary label must plainly state 

all of the required information on its 

face or if the use of a URL or other 

‘‘pointer’’ should be allowed (and, if so, 

whether all of the required information 

should be allowed to be conveyed in 

that manner). The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether a labeling 

requirement should be used to assist 

consumers and other parties in 

determining whether the device has 

become Certified. Should the label 

contain a URL or other machinereadable ‘‘pointer’’ that enables retailers 

and end-users to verify the status of a 

device’s authorization? If so, would the 

label need to be temporary? Are other 

labels or import documentation 

necessary to allow third parties to 

identify whether there is a legitimate 

attempt to obtain authorization for the 

otherwise unauthorized devices? 

Should, for example, manufacturers be 

required to maintain a database or other 

public-facing way to confirm that an 

authorization is being sought for the 

device? Would a temporary label make 

it easier for bad actors to sell 

unauthorized devices by falsely 

claiming their devices have received or 

are in the process of receiving 

authorization? Finally, if temporary 

labels include a URL or other pointer to 

an online website or database where the 

equipment’s authorization status can be 

verified, would that reduce the chances 

of bad actors using such labels for 

fraudulent purposes? 

22. The Commission seeks comment 

on requiring manufacturers to maintain 

legal ownership of devices, even after 

transferring control of them to retailers. 

How would such a requirement operate 

in practice? The Commission asks 

whether the language contained in the 

proposed rule would be sufficient to 

implement this proposal. If 

manufacturers retain legal ownership of 

devices after they have left their direct 

control, would that provide them with 

adequate incentive and means to ensure 

that their devices do not cause harm to 

consumers or other radio operations? 

Would they be able to help remediate 

any harm that may occur? What are the 

primary benefits of codifying such a 

requirement? Would this make it easier 

for manufacturers to identify and recall 

radiofrequency devices from retailers in 

the event that equipment authorization 

is not obtained? Would this condition 

be more burdensome for small 

manufacturers than large 

manufacturers? How would this 

condition impact device retailers? 

Would it impact small retailers 

differently than large retailers? Should 

online retailers and brick-and-mortar 

retailers be treated differently? Should 

foreign-based manufacturers be treated 

differently? Are manufacturers the 

correct entity here or is there a larger 

universe of entities to which the 

ownership provision should apply, such 

as importers or sellers? Should 

manufacturers be required to maintain a 

public-facing database of imports made 

under this proposed rule? If so, what 

information should be included in such 

a database? Should manufacturers 

otherwise be responsible for 

unauthorized devices imported under 

this proposed rule that are operated 

illegally? 

23. The Commission asks about 

requiring manufacturers to have 

processes in place to retrieve the 

equipment from retailers in the event 

that authorization is denied. How 

should such processes be structured? 

For example, should the Commission 

specify these processes or allow 

manufacturers to develop their own 

processes, provided they are effective in 

retrieving equipment from retailers in 

the event that authorization is denied? 

Should the Commission require 

manufacturers to maintain specific 

detailed records of which devices are 

supplied to which locations and/or 

prepare a formal plan prior to 

importation? If so, should the 

Commission require that these records 

be supplied to the Commission or 

posted to the manufacturer’s website or 

the website of a relevant industry trade 

group (such as CTA)? How long should 

the Commission require these records to 

be maintained? As with other similar 

records, should the Commission require 

that such records be made available to 

it upon request (such as before devices 

may be imported for pre-sale activities 

or in the event that a device recall 

becomes necessary)? If the manufacturer 

is unable to obtain authorization for its 

equipment, should the Commission 

require the manufacturer to provide the 

Commission a report detailing its plan 

for retrieving equipment along with 

status reports updating the progress of 

that endeavor? If so, what information 

should be included in this report? 

Should the Commission require 

manufacturers to report the model and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2342 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

serial numbers of all devices that are 

retrieved? When should a status report 

be required? How long should 

manufacturers have to complete the 

device retrieval process? Would 14 days 

be appropriate? Should manufacturers 

have more or less time to complete the 

retrieval process? 

24. The Commission recognizes that 

there are additional conditions or 

approaches beyond those discussed 

above, which were based on safeguards 

suggested by CTA, that could be 

appropriate to meet its objectives of 

adding a new permissible import 

condition while minimizing the 

potential for unauthorized and noncompliant radiofrequency devices to 

cause harm to consumers or other radio 

operations. The Commission asks 

whether there are conditions it should 

adopt in addition to or instead of those 

CTA has identified and encouraged 

commenters to identify the specific 

requirements that would be the most 

effective while minimizing potential 

burdens. For example, in addition to or 

in lieu of a strict numerical importation 

limit, should the Commission 

differentiate based on the nature or type 

of device? Should it exempt certain 

classes of equipment or equipment that 

are intended to operate in certain bands 

due to greater risk of harmful 

interference or harm to persons, such as 

U–NII devices, medical devices, or 

devices designed to operate exclusively 

in public safety bands? If so, 

commenters should be specific as to 

what equipment or bands should be 

excluded. Further, the Commission 

recognizes that certain types of devices 

are used to ensure the safety of life and 

property on board ships and aircraft and 

seeks comment on whether there is any 

reason to exclude those types of devices 

from its proposal. The Commission also 

notes that certain rules in Parts 80, 87, 

and 95 of its rules may need to be 

adjusted for purposes of streamlining 

the proposed framework, proposed to 

revise Section 95.391, 47 CFR 95.391, to 

ensure that its rules are consistent with 

the proposed framework, and seeks 

comment on whether other rules, such 

as Sections 80.1061, 87.147, and 

95.2991, 47 CFR 80.1061, 87.147, and 

95.2991, should also be revised or 

clarified. 

25. The Commission notes that some 

commenters have suggested that it could 

require a remote shutdown feature for 

all radiofrequency devices imported for 

pre-sale activities and observed that 

under its experimental licensing rules 

there are specific situations in which 

licensees must either recall or disable 

devices at the end of an experiment. The 

Commission asks if it should adopt such 

a requirement in its final rule and, if so, 

whether it should apply to all types of 

radiofrequency devices or only 

radiofrequency devices that operate in 

accordance with particular Commission 

rule parts. 

26. The Commission notes that the 

proposed rule restricts devices from 

being displayed, offered for sale, or 

marketed to consumers, but places no 

limitations on where they may be sent 

after importation. The Commission asks 

if parties believe that this would present 

unwarranted risks for adequate control 

of the devices prior to authorization 

and, if so, whether the Commission 

should require that the devices be kept 

only at specific locations, such as 

distribution facilities, prior to 

authorization. 

27. Because the proposed rule 

modification would allow 

radiofrequency devices that are not yet 

Certified to be imported, the 

Commission seeks comment on how 

manufacturers intend to ensure that 

these devices comply with the 

Commission’s labeling and disclosure 

requirements once authorization is 

obtained. The proposed rule 

incorporates CTA’s suggestion that 

devices imported pursuant to this 

Section ‘‘may include the expected FCC 

ID if obscured by the temporary label.’’ 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether this would be an effective way 

to ensure that a device complies with 

the Commission’s rules once it receives 

authorization. Would there be situations 

where manufacturers would have to 

physically recall devices to ensure that 

they comply with the labeling and 

disclosure requirements associated with 

the Commission’s equipment 

authorization rules? How could the 

Commission be confident that 

manufacturers take all necessary steps 

to ensure that devices imported prior to 

equipment authorization comply with 

the Commission’s labeling and 

disclosure rules? What impact would 

the use of electronic labeling have on 

this matter? 

28. The Commission asks how 

enforcement of this rule should be 

structured. What penalties would be 

appropriate for violating any of the 

conditions attached to this rule? For 

example, should a manufacturer be 

barred from availing itself of this 

exception for future importations if it 

fails to obtain authorization for a 

radiofrequency device imported under 

this proposed rule? Or if it fails to 

comply with any of the labeling or 

reporting requirements the Commission 

might ultimately adopt? Should a 

manufacturer be barred from availing 

itself of this exception for future 

importations only if it fails to retrieve 

all devices after failing to obtain 

authorization for a radiofrequency 

device imported under this proposed 

rule? Should the manufacturer be 

subject to a penalty under Section 503 

of the Act, and if so, what should be the 

base forfeiture for such violations? Are 

there other ways the Commission 

should structure enforcement where the 

manufacturer fails to retrieve equipment 

in the event an authorization is denied? 

29. The Commission seeks comment 

on this importation proposal and the 

likely costs and benefits associated with 

expanding the provisions under which 

radiofrequency devices may be 

imported to support pre-sale activities. 

Can these benefits be quantified in 

terms of cost savings to device 

manufacturers? How would this rule 

affect the time it takes to get new 

innovative devices to market? Would 

importing devices for pre-sale activities 

generate any other benefits or risks for 

industry or consumers? The 

Commission encourages commenters to 

provide data to quantify these benefits 

and risks. In addition, what would be 

the costs to firms in following the 

safeguards discussed above, such as the 

use of temporary device labels and 

maintaining processes to retrieve 

equipment from retailers if 

authorization is denied? If commenters 

have alternative proposals to reform the 

importation rules, what would be the 

benefits and costs? 

30. The Commission notes that its 

equipment authorization proceeding in 

ET Docket 15–170, which also asks 

questions about importation, remains 

open and active, it tentatively 

concluded that the marketing and 

importation changes proposed in this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are 

sufficiently discrete that it could act on 

them independently, and seeks 

comment on how they might interrelate 

with any open equipment authorization 

matters the Commission has under 

consideration. 

31. Finally, the Commission 

recognizes that other agencies play an 

important role in importation matters. 

The Commission asks if there are 

specific actions the Commission can 

take in working with Customs and 

Border Protection, with which the 

Commission has a longstanding 

cooperative relationship, to help ensure 

that radiofrequency devices imported 

for pre-sale activities prior to 

authorization comply with all 

applicable conditions. Are there other 

agencies the Commission should work 

with to ensure that its importation rules 

operate in an effective and efficient 

manner? Are there other agencies that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2343 

have addressed importation issues 

related to products subject to approval 

that would provide a model for 

achieving the Commission’s objectives? 

Procedural Matters 

32. This document contains proposed 

new information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

we seek specific comment on how we 

might further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

33. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the Commission has 

prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities of 

the proposals addressed in this Notice. 

The Full IRFA is found in Appendix B 

at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fccproposes-rules-expedite-release-newdevices-and-technologies-0. Written 

public comments are requested on the 

IRFA. These comments must be filed in 

accordance with the same filing 

deadlines for comments on the NPRM, 

and they should have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA. The 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, will send a copy of 

this Notice, including the IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, in accordance 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

34. The Commission requests written 

public comment on the IRFA. 

Comments must be filed in accordance 

with the same filing deadlines as 

comments filed in response to the 

NPRM and must have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA. The 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, will send a copy of 

this Notice, including the IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, in accordance 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

35. Ex Parte Presentations. The 

proceeding this Notice initiates shall be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

36. Filing Requirements. Pursuant to 

§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 

parties may file comments and reply 

comments on or before the dates 

indicated on the first page of this 

document. Comments may be filed 

using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS). See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 

(1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020). 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

37. People with Disabilities: To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 

or call the Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 

202–418–0432 (tty). 

Ordering Clauses 

38. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to Sections 4(i), 201, 302, and 

303 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 302a, 

303, that this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is hereby adopted. 

39. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial and Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

40. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial and Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 2 

Frequency Allocations and Radio 

Treaty Matters; General Rules and 

Regulations. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2344 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

47 CFR Part 95 

Personal Radio Services. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 2 as follows: 

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS 

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; 

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 

336, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 2.803 revise paragraph (c)(2)(i) 

to read as follows: 

§ 2.803 Marketing of radio frequency 

devices prior to equipment authorization. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Conditional sales contracts 

(including agreements to produce new 

devices manufactured in accordance 

with designated specifications), and 

advertisements for such sales, are 

permitted between manufacturers and 

potential customers provided that the 

prospective buyer is advised at the time 

of marketing, through a prominent 

disclosure, that the equipment is subject 

to the FCC rules and delivery to the 

buyer or to centers of distribution is 

conditional upon a determination that 

the equipment complies with the 

applicable equipment authorization and 

technical requirements. Delivery to 

customers of equipment subject to FCC 

rules prior to obtaining the applicable 

equipment authorization and complying 

with the applicable technical 

requirements is prohibited. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 2.1204 by adding 

paragraph (a)(11) to read as follows: 

§ 2.1204 Import Conditions. 

(a) * * * 

(11) The radio frequency device is 

subject to Certification and is being 

imported in quantities of 4,000 or fewer 

units for pre-sale activity. Pre-sale 

activity includes packaging and 

delivering devices to retails locations, as 

well as loading devices with specific 

software to demonstrate specific 

features of the devices when displayed 

at retail locations. The devices will not 

be displayed, operated, offered for sale, 

marketed to consumers, or sold until 

proper equipment authorization has 

been obtained. 

(i) The Chief, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, may approve 

importation of a greater number of units 

in a manner otherwise consistent with 

this paragraph (11) in response to a 

specific request; 

(ii) This exception is only available to 

manufacturers for radiofrequency 

devices who have a reasonable belief 

that authorization will be granted 

within 30 days of importation; 

(iii) Each device imported under this 

exception must contain a temporary 

removable label stating: ‘‘This device 

cannot be displayed, operated, offered 

for sale, marketed to consumers, or sold 

until FCC equipment authorization has 

been granted. Under penalty of law, this 

label may not be removed prior to the 

grant of FCC authorization.’’ 

(iv) Notwithstanding § 2.926, 

radiofrequency devices imported 

pursuant to this paragraph (11) may 

include the expected FCC ID if obscured 

by the temporary label described in this 

section or, in the case of electronic 

displays, if it cannot be viewed prior to 

authorization. 

(v) The radiofrequency devices 

remain under legal ownership of the 

device manufacturer, and only 

possession of the device is transferred 

prior to authorization. Manufacturers 

must have processes in place to retrieve 

the equipment in the event that 

authorization is not received. 

(vi) Manufacturers must maintain, for 

a period of sixty (60) months, records 

identifying the recipient of devices 

imported for pre-sale activities. Such 

records must identify the device name 

and product identifier, the quantity 

shipped, the date on which the device 

authorization was sought, the expected 

FCC ID number, and the identity of the 

recipient, including address and 

telephone number. The manufacturer 

must provide records maintained under 

this paragraph (vi) upon the request of 

Commission personnel. 

PART 95—PERSONAL RADIO 

SERVICES 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 95 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307. 

■ 5. Section 95.391 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 95.391 Manufacturing, importation, and 

sales of non-certified equipment prohibited. 

No person shall manufacture, import, 

sell or offer for sale non-certified 

equipment for the Personal Radio 

Services except as provided for in 

§ 2.803(c)(2)(i) of this chapter. See 

§ 302(b) of the Communications Act (47 

U.S.C. 302a(b)). See also part 2, subpart 

I (§ 2.801 et seq.) of this chapter for rules 

governing marketing of radiofrequency 

devices. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28906 Filed 1–11–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 391 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2019–0049] 

RIN 2126–AC21 

Qualifications of Drivers; Vision 

Standard 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to amend its 

regulations to permit individuals who 

cannot meet either the current distant 

visual acuity or field of vision standard, 

or both, in one eye to be physically 

qualified to operate a commercial motor 

vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. 

Currently, such individuals are 

prohibited from driving CMVs in 

interstate commerce unless they obtain 

an exemption from FMCSA. The Agency 

proposes an alternative vision standard 

for physical qualification that, if 

adopted, would replace the current 

vision exemption program as a basis for 

establishing the physical qualification 

determination for these individuals. 

DATES: You must submit comments on 

this notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) to FMCSA on or before March 

15, 2021. Comments on the collection of 

information must be received on or 

before March 15, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this NPRM identified by docket 

number FMCSA–2019–0049 using any 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket Operations, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS