Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46641 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 2 

[ET Docket No. 21–232, EA Docket No. 21– 

233; FCC 21–73; FR ID 39556] 

Protecting Against National Security 

Threats to the Communications Supply 

Chain Through the Equipment 

Authorization Program and the 

Competitive Bidding Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Commission seeks 

comment on how to leverage its 

equipment authorization program to 

encourage manufacturers who are 

building devices that will connect to 

U.S. networks to consider cybersecurity 

standards and guidelines. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

September 20, 2021; reply comments are 

due on or before October 18, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ET Docket No. 21–232, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, 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. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jamie Coleman Office of Engineering 

and Technology, 202–418–2705, 

Jamie.Coleman@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Inquiry (NOI), that is part of ET Docket 

No. 21–232, EA Docket No. 21–233, FCC 

21–73, that was adopted and released 

June 17, 2021. The full text of this 

document is available by downloading 

the text from the Commission’s website 

at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/ 

equipment-authorization-andcompetitive-bidding-supply-chainnprm. When the FCC Headquarters 

reopens to the public, the full text of 

this document will also be available for 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. Alternative 

formats are available for people with 

disabilities (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), by 

sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Consumer and Governmental 

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

202–418–0432 (TTY). 

Comment Filing Procedures 

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. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

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

Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose 

The proceeding this NOI initiates 

shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules, 

47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 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. 

Synopsis 

The Commission adopted this Notice 

of Inquiry (NOI) in conjunction with a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET 

Docket No. 21–232, EA Docket No. 21– 

233, FCC 21–73, in which it proposes 

direct action to limit the presence of 

untrusted equipment and services in 

U.S. networks. The Commission 

believes that ensuring continued U.S. 

leadership requires that the Commission 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
46642 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

also explore opportunities to spur 

trustworthy innovation for more secure 

equipment. In this NOI, the Commission 

seeks comment on how the Commission 

can leverage its equipment 

authorization program to encourage 

manufacturers who are building devices 

that will connect to U.S. networks to 

consider cybersecurity standards and 

guidelines. 

The development and implementation 

of effective cybersecurity practices 

requires the continued cooperation and 

participation of all stakeholders. In this 

regard, the Commission observes that 

both the public and private sectors have 

come together to develop measures to 

protect the integrity of communications 

networks and guard against malicious or 

foreign intrusions that can compromise 

network services, steal proprietary 

information, and harm consumers. In 

particular, the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) has 

worked with both industry and 

government to produce multiple 

cybersecurity frameworks and other 

forms of guidance that help protect the 

integrity of communications networks. 

Pursuant to Executive Order No. 13636, 

NIST began working with public and 

private stakeholders to develop a 

voluntary cybersecurity framework 

designed to reduce risks to critical 

infrastructure. Exec. Order No. 13636, 

78 FR 11737 (Feb. 19, 2013; see Nat’l 

Inst. of Standards & Tech., Cybersecurity 

Framework: New to Framework (last 

updated Sept. 23, 2020), https://

www.nist.gov/cyberframework/newframework. This framework consists of 

‘‘voluntary guidance, based on existing 

standards, guidelines, and practices for 

organizations to better manage and 

reduce cybersecurity risk.’’ See Nat’l 

Inst. of Standards & Tech., Cybersecurity 

Framework: New to Framework (last 

updated Sept. 23, 2020), https://

www.nist.gov/cyberframework/newframework. Originally issued in 2013, 

the NIST cybersecurity framework was 

updated in 2018 to clarify and refine 

certain aspects and better explain how 

entities should use the framework to 

improve their cybersecurity practices. 

See Nat’l Inst. of Standards & Tech., 

Framework for Improving Critical 

Infrastructure Cybersecurity: Version 1.1 

(Apr. 16, 2018), https://

nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/ 

NIST.CSWP.04162018.pdf. In addition, 

among other organizations, the Federal 

Trade Commission has been active in 

cybersecurity matters for years, bringing 

multiple enforcement actions against 

firms for having poor cybersecurity 

practices and offering cybersecurity 

guidance for Internet of Things (IoT) 

devices as early as 2015. Fed. Trade 

Comm’n, Careful Connections: Building 

Security in the Internet of Things (Jan. 

2015), https://www.bulkorder.ftc.gov/ 

system/files/publications/pdf0199- 

carefulconnections-buildingsecurity

internetofthings.pdf. Further, industry 

trade groups, including CTIA–The 

Wireless Association, GSMA, the ioXt 

Alliance, and TIA have produced 

cybersecurity guidance applicable to 

various sectors of the communications 

industry. Non-profit standards bodies 

and think tanks have also produced 

cybersecurity guidance that could be 

useful to the communications industry. 

See, e.g., internet Soc’y, Internet of 

Things (IoT) Trust Framework v2.5 (May 

22, 2019), https://

www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/ 

2018/iot-trust-framework-v2-5/. 

More recently, NIST has developed a 

Cybersecurity for IoT Program, which 

specifically ‘‘supports the development 

and application of standards, 

guidelines, and related tools to improve 

the cybersecurity of connected devices 

and the environments in which they are 

deployed.’’ Nat’l Inst. of Standards & 

Tech., NIST Cybersecurity for IoT 

Program (last updated Mar. 19, 2021), 

https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/ 

nist-cybersecurity-iot-program. Devices 

that operate as part of the IoT 

specifically raise concerns about 

security risks. For example, NTIA has 

recognized that connected devices in 

the IoT can extend the scope and scale 

of automated, distributed attacks. 

This Cybersecurity for IoT program 

has produced multiple reports, but 

perhaps most notable is Internal Report 

8259, released in May 2020. Nat’l Inst. 

of Standards & Tech., Foundational 

Cybersecurity Activities for IoT Device 

Manufacturers, Internal Report 8259 

(May 2020) (NIST IoT Report), https:// 

nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2020/ 

NIST.IR.8259.pdf. This NIST IoT Report 

details activities that ‘‘can help 

manufacturers lessen the cybersecurityrelated efforts needed by customers, 

which in turn can reduce the prevalence 

and severity of IoT device compromises 

and the attacks performed using 

compromised devices.’’ Id. The NIST 

IoT Report is voluntary guidance 

intended to help promote the best 

available practices for mitigating risks to 

IoT security. The report describes six 

recommended foundational 

cybersecurity activities that 

manufacturers should consider 

performing to improve the securability 

of the new IoT devices they make. They 

include identifying expected customers 

and users and defining expected use 

cases; researching customer 

cybersecurity needs and goals; 

determining how to address customer 

needs and goals; planning for adequate 

support of customer needs and goals; 

defining approaches for communicating 

to customers; and deciding what to 

communicate to customers and how to 

communicate it. These activities are 

intended to fit within a manufacturer’s 

existing development process. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

how it can leverage its equipment 

authorization program to help address 

the particular security risks that are 

associated with IoT devices. Should the 

Commission encourage manufacturers 

of IoT devices to follow the guidance in 

the NIST IoT Report? If the Commission 

were to utilize the equipment 

authorization process to incentivize 

better cybersecurity practices, either for 

all devices or specifically for IoT 

devices, what form should such 

provisions take and how would such a 

program be structured most effectively? 

Should the FCC allow IoT 

manufacturers to voluntarily certify 

during the equipment authorization 

process that they have performed or 

plan to perform the activities described 

in the guidance? Are there other 

technologies or cybersecurity methods 

that mitigate security risks (e.g., RF 

fingerprinting or some other method)? 

What, if anything, should the 

Commission be doing to encourage 

development and adoption of such 

technologies or methods? Which 

standards should be considered? Are 

there other incentives or considerations 

that could encourage manufacturers to 

build security into their products? 

Commenters should discuss the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with their proposals or with the 

potential approaches discussed herein. 

Even with broad adoption of industry 

best practices and standards, some 

equipment sold in the United States 

may lack appropriate security 

protections. What is the role of retailers 

in voluntarily limiting the sale of such 

equipment? How can retailers educate 

consumers about the importance of 

security protections for their devices? 

The Commission also seeks to 

understand developments in 

international standards-setting bodies. 

What is the status of international 

standards-setting that could be relevant 

to supply chain security, and what can 

the FCC do to encourage action by 

international standards-setting bodies 

and participation by American 

companies in their efforts? 

The Commission observes that the 

Consumer Technology Association 

(CTA) published a white paper offering 

guidance for how government, industry, 

and consumers can all work together to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46643 

promote better cybersecurity practices 

going forward. Consumer Tech. Ass’n, 

Smart Policy to Secure our Smart 

Future: How to Promote a Secure 

Internet of Things for Consumers (Mar. 

2021) (CTA Cybersecurity White Paper), 

https://www.cta.tech/Resources/ 

Newsroom/Media-Releases/2021/ 

March/IOT-Device-Security-WhitePaper-Release. In this white paper, CTA 

encourages public-private partnerships 

to develop and deploy risk-based 

approaches to cybersecurity, and argues 

that ‘‘neither the new Administration 

nor Congress should embrace rules, 

product labels or certification regimes 

for consumer IoT.’’ They claim that 

‘‘[c]ybersecurity mandates, pre-market 

‘approval,’ and government certification 

or labeling of IoT devices are likely to 

require an enormous bureaucracy and 

have unintended consequences.’’ The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

views. Are there any gaps in the NIST 

IoT Report or other federal efforts to 

address IoT security that the 

Commission could help address? 

The Commission recognizes that 

consideration of how to incentivize 

cybersecurity best practices through the 

equipment authorization process aligns 

closely with the recently issued 

Executive Order 14028, which directs 

NIST to work with the Federal Trade 

Commission and other agencies to 

develop a labeling program to identify 

specific IoT cybersecurity criteria and 

provide that information to consumers. 

Exec. Order No. 14028, Executive Order 

on Improving the Nation’s 

Cybersecurity, 86 FR 26633, 26640–41, 

§ 4(s)–(u) (May 17, 2021). While the 

Director of NIST has not yet identified 

the agencies that will participate in the 

forthcoming IoT cybersecurity labeling 

program, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

can support these efforts, either directly 

or indirectly. If so, how? 

Legal Authority 

Adopting rules that take security into 

consideration in the equipment 

authorization process would serve the 

public interest by addressing significant 

national security risks that have been 

identified by this Commission in other 

proceedings, and by Congress and other 

federal agencies, and doing so would be 

consistent with the Commission’s 

statutory ‘‘purpose of regulating 

interstate and foreign commerce in 

communication by wire and radio . . . 

for the purpose of the national defense 

[and] for the purpose of promoting 

safety of life and property through the 

use of wire and radio communications.’’ 

47 U.S.C. 151. The Commission 

tentatively concludes that doing so is 

not specifically authorized by the 

Secure Networks Act itself, pursuant to 

which the Commission adopted the 

Covered List. However, the Commission 

has broad authority to adopt rules, not 

inconsistent with the Communications 

Act, ‘‘as may be necessary in the 

execution of its functions.’’ 47 U.S.C. 

154(i). The Commission believes that, in 

order to ensure that the Commission’s 

rules under the Secure Networks Act 

effectively preclude use of equipment 

on the Covered List by USF recipients 

as contemplated by Congress, it is 

necessary to rely on the Commission’s 

established equipment authorization 

procedures to restrict further equipment 

authorization, and the importation and 

marketing, of such devices in the first 

instance. As discussed above, the 

Commission also relies on the 

equipment authorization process to 

implement other statutory duties, 

including the duty to promote efficient 

use of the radio spectrum, the duties 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act to regulate human RF 

exposure, the Commission’s duty to 

ensure that mobile handsets are 

compatible with hearing aids, and the 

duty to deny federal benefits to certain 

individuals who have been convicted 

multiple times of federal offenses 

related to trafficking in or possession of 

controlled substances. The Commission 

believes that these processes can and 

should also serve the purpose of 

fulfilling other Commission 

responsibilities under the Secure 

Networks Act, and the Commission 

seeks comment on that issue. 

The Commission also believes that 

other authorities in the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, provide 

authority for the Commission to rely on 

for potential modifications to its rules 

and procedures governing equipment 

authorization. Since Congress added 

section 302 to the Act, the 

Commission’s part 2 equipment 

authorization rules and processes have 

served to ensure that RF equipment 

marketed, sold, imported, and used in 

the United States complies with the 

applicable rules governing use of such 

equipment. See Equipment 

Authorization of RF Devices, Docket No. 

19356, Report and Order, 39 FR 5912, 

5912, para. 2 (1970). That section 

authorizes the Commission to, 

‘‘consistent with the public interest, 

convenience, and necessity, make 

reasonable regulations . . . governing 

the interference potential of devices 

which in their operation are capable of 

emitting radio frequency energy by 

radiation, conduction, or other means in 

sufficient degree to cause harmful 

interference to radio communications.’’ 

47 U.S.C. 302(a)(1). Regulations that the 

Commission adopts in implementing 

that authority ‘‘shall be applicable to the 

manufacture, import, sale, offer for sale, 

or shipment of such devices and . . . to 

the use of such devices.’’ 47 U.S.C. 

302(a)(2). The authorization processes 

are primarily for the purpose of 

evaluating equipment’s compliance 

with technical specifications intended 

to minimize the interference potential of 

devices that emit RF energy. As noted 

above, however, these rules are also 

designed to implement other statutory 

responsibilities. The Commission seeks 

comment on the scope of the authority 

to rely on such rules to effectuate other 

public interest responsibilities, 

including the Commission’s section 

303(e) authority to ‘‘[r]egulate the kind 

of apparatus to be used with respect to 

its external effects.’’ 47 U.S.C. 303(e). 

Section 302(a) directs the Commission 

to make reasonable regulations 

consistent with the public interest 

governing the interference potential of 

devices; it would appear to be in the 

public interest not to approve devices 

capable of emitting RF energy in 

sufficient degree to cause harmful 

interference to radio communications if 

such equipment has been deemed, 

pursuant to law, to pose an 

unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States or the 

security and safety of United States 

persons. The Commission seeks 

comment on this tentative conclusion. 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on a potential alternative basis for such 

security rules. The Communications 

Assistance for Law Enforcement Act 

(CALEA) includes security requirements 

that apply directly to equipment 

intended for use by providers of 

telecommunications services. 47 U.S.C. 

1001–1010. Section 105 requires 

telecommunications carriers to ensure 

that the surveillance capabilities built 

into their networks ‘‘can be activated 

only in accordance with a court order or 

other lawful authorization and with the 

affirmative intervention of an individual 

officer or employee of the carrier acting 

in accordance with regulations 

prescribed by the Commission,’’ (47 

U.S.C. 1004) and the Commission has 

concluded that its rule prohibiting the 

use of equipment produced or provided 

by any company posing a national 

security threat implements that 

provision. Supply Chain First Report 

and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 11436–37, 

paras. 35–36. The Commission is 

required to prescribe rules necessary to 

implement CALEA’s requirements. 47 

U.S.C. 229. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
46644 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

As noted above, the Commission 

believes it has ancillary authority under 

section 4(i) of the Act to consider 

revisions to its part 2 rules as reasonably 

necessary to the effective enforcement of 

the Secure Networks Act. The 

Commission also tentatively concludes 

that such rules would be consistent with 

the Commission’s specific statutorily 

mandated responsibilities under the 

Communications Act to make 

reasonable regulations consistent with 

the public interest governing the 

interference potential of electronic 

devices, to protect consumers through 

the oversight of common carriers under 

Title II of that Act, and to prescribe the 

nature of services to be rendered by 

radio licensees under section 303(b) of 

that Act. The Commission seeks 

comment on this reasoning as well. The 

Commission also seeks comment on any 

other sources of authority for the 

Commission to propose rules as a result 

of this Notice of Inquiry. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16087 Filed 8–18–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 2 

[ET Docket No. 21–232, EA Docket No. 21– 

233; FCC 21–73; FR ID 39522] 

Protecting Against National Security 

Threats to the Communications Supply 

Chain Through the Equipment 

Authorization Program and the 

Competitive Bidding Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to 

revise rules related to its equipment 

authorization processes to prohibit 

authorization of any ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment on the recently established 

Covered List. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether to require 

additional certification relating to 

national security from applicants who 

wish to participate in the Commission’s 

competitive bidding auctions. This 

action explores steps the Commission 

can take to further its goal of protecting 

communications networks from 

communications equipment and 

services that pose a national security 

risk. 

DATES: Comments are due September 

20, 2021. Reply comments are due 

October 18, 2021. Written comments on 

the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed 

information collection requirements 

must be submitted by the public, Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), and 

other interested parties on or before 

October 18, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ET Docket No. 21–232, by 

any of the following methods: 

• 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. 

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 

calling the Consumer and Governmental 

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

202–418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jamie Coleman, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, 202–418–2705, 

Jamie.Coleman@fcc.gov. For 

information regarding the PRA 

information collection requirements 

contained in this PRA, contact Nicole 

Ongele, Office of Managing Director, at 

(202) 418–2991 or Nicole.Ongele@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in ET 

Docket No. 21–232 and EA Docket No. 

21–233; FCC 21–73, adopted and 

released June 17, 2021. The full text of 

this document is available by 

downloading the text from the 

Commission’s website at: https://

www.fcc.gov/document/equipmentauthorization-and-competitive-biddingsupply-chain-nprm. When the FCC 

Headquarters reopens to the public, the 

full text of this document will also be 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street 

NE, Washington, DC 20554. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

This document contains proposed 

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. Public and agency 

comments are due October 18, 2021. 

Comments should address: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; and (e) way to 

further reduce the information 

collection burden on small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

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. 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0057. 

Title: Application for Equipment 

Authorization, FCC Form 731. 

Form No.: FCC Form 731. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 11,305 respondents; 24,873 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 8.11 

hours (rounded). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1