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
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46645 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

and one-time reporting requirements; 

third-party disclosure requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in the 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 

302, 303, 309(j), 312, and 316, and 47 

CFR 1.411. 

Total Annual Burden: 206,863 hours. 

Total Annual Costs: $50,155,140. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes. 

The personally identifiable information 

(PII) in this information collection is 

covered by a Privacy Impact Assessment 

(PIA), Equipment Authorizations 

Records and Files Information System. 

It is posted at: https://www.fcc.gov/ 

general/privacy-act-information#pia. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

Minimal exemption from the Freedom 

of Information Act (FOIA) under 5 

U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and FCC rules under 47 

CFR 0.457(d) is granted for trade secrets 

which may be submitted as attachments 

to the application FCC Form 731. No 

other assurances of confidentiality are 

provided to respondents. 

Needs and Uses: The Commission 

will submit this revised information 

collection to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) after this 60-day 

comment period to obtain the three-year 

clearance. The Commission is reporting 

program changes, increases to this 

information collection. 

On June 17, 2021, the Commission 

adopted a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry in ET 

Docket. No. 21–232 and EA Docket No. 

21–233, FCC 21–73, ‘‘Protecting Against 

National Security Threats to the 

Communications Supply Chain through 

the Equipment Authorization Program.’’ 

Among other proposed rules intended to 

secure our nation’s telecommunications 

networks, the Commission proposes to 

amend the 47 CFR part 2 rules related 

to equipment authorization to prohibit 

the authorization of communications 

equipment if the Commission 

determines that such equipment or 

service poses an unacceptable risk to the 

national security of the United States or 

the security and safety of United States 

persons. Accordingly, the Commission 

proposes to add § 2.911 to its rules, 47 

CFR 2.911. The statutory authority for 

this collection of information is 

authorized under sections 4(i), 301, 302, 

303, 309(j), 312, and 316 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 

303, 309(j), 312, and 316. 

Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose 

The proceeding this NPRM 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 

I. Introduction 

In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission 

proposes revisions to its equipment 

authorization rules and processes to 

prohibit authorization of any 

communications equipment on the list 

of equipment and services (Covered 

List) that the Commission maintains 

pursuant to the Secure and Trusted 

Communications Networks Act of 2019. 

Secure and Trusted Communications 

Networks Act of 2019, Public Law 116– 

124, 133 Stat. 158 (2020) (codified as 

amended at 47 U.S.C. 1601–1609) 

(Secure Networks Act). This prohibition 

would apply to ‘‘covered’’ equipment on 

the Covered List maintained and 

updated by the Commission’s Public 

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau 

(PSHSB) at https://www.fcc.gov/ 

supplychain/coveredlist. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether the rules concerning equipment 

currently exempted from the equipment 

authorization requirement should be 

revised to ensure that any ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment cannot qualify for such 

exemption. In addition, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether to revoke 

any of the authorizations that have been 

previously granted for ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment on the Covered List, and if 

so, which ones and through what 

procedures. Finally, the Commission 

seeks comment on new certifications for 

applicants that wish to participate in 

Commission auctions that would further 

address the risks posed by companies 

that the Commission has designated as 

posing a national security threat to the 

integrity of communications networks 

and the communications supply chain. 

II. Background 

The Covered List. On March 21, 2021, 

PSHSB published the Covered List 

identifying the covered equipment and 

services that specific, enumerated 

sources have deemed to pose an 

unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States or the 

security and safety of United States 

persons. ‘‘Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau Announces Publication 

of the List of Equipment and Services 

Covered by Section 2 of the Secure 

Networks Act,’’ WC Docket No. 18–89, 

Public Notice, DA 21–309 (PSHSB, Mar. 

12, 2021) (Covered List Public Notice); 

see 47 CFR 1.50002. Pursuant to 47 CFR 

1.50002, this Covered List identified 

certain telecommunications equipment 

and services produced or provided by 

Huawei Technologies Company and 

ZTE Corporation, and video 

surveillance and telecommunications 

equipment and services produced or 

provided by Hytera Communications 

Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision 

Digital Technology Company, and 

Dahua Technology Company—and their 

respective subsidiaries and/or affiliates. 

The Commission tasked PSHSB with 

ongoing responsibilities for monitoring 

the status of the determinations and 

periodically updating the Covered List 

to address changes as appropriate. 

The equipment authorization 

program. The Commission’s current 

rules provide two different approval 

procedures for equipment 

authorization—Certification of 

equipment and Supplier’s Declaration of 

Conformity (SDoC). As a general matter, 

for a radiofrequency device (RF device) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
46646 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

to be marketed or operated in the United 

States, it must have been authorized for 

use through one of these two processes. 

Some RF equipment has been exempted 

from the need for an equipment 

authorization. At this time, the 

Commission’s current equipment 

authorization rules do not include 

specific provisions addressing the 

‘‘covered’’ equipment on the Covered 

List. 

Competitive bidding certifications. 

The Commission uses competitive 

bidding to determine which among 

multiple applicants with mutually 

exclusive applications for a license may 

file a full application for the license. 

Congress gave the Commission the 

authority to require such information 

and assurances from applicants to 

participate in competitive bidding as is 

necessary to demonstrate that their 

application is acceptable. Pursuant to 

this authority, the Commission has 

required each applicant to participate in 

competitive bidding to make various 

certifications. 

III. Discussion 

In this NPRM, the Commission 

examines its rules relating to equipment 

authorization and participation in 

Commission auctions to help advance 

the Commission’s goal of protecting 

national security and public safety. This 

proceeding builds on other actions the 

Commission recently has taken to 

protect and secure our nation’s 

communications systems. 

In other proceedings over the last 

three years, the Commission has taken 

several actions to prevent use of 

equipment and services that pose an 

unacceptable risk to our nation’s 

communications networks. In June 

2020, the Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau (PSHSB) designated 

Huawei and ZTE as national security 

threats to the integrity of 

communications networks, prohibiting 

the use of Universal Service Fund (USF) 

support to purchase, obtain, maintain, 

improve, modify, or otherwise support 

any equipment or services produced or 

provided by Huawei and ZTE. See 

Protecting Against National Security 

Threats to the Communications Supply 

Chain Through FCC Programs—Huawei 

Designation, PS Docket No. 19–351, 

Order, 35 FCC Rcd 6604 (PSHSB 2020) 

(Huawei Designation Order); See 

Protecting Against National Security 

Threats to the Communications Supply 

Chain Through FCC Programs—ZTE 

Designation, PS Docket No. 19–352, 

Order, 35 FCC Rcd 6633 (PSHSB 2020) 

(ZTE Designation Order). Most recently, 

PSHSB, as required by the December 

2020 Supply Chain Second Report and 

Order (Supply Chain Second Report and 

Order, 35 FCC Rcd 14284), published 

the Covered List, which identifies 

‘‘covered’’ equipment and services that 

pose an unacceptable risk to national 

security or to the security and safety of 

U.S. persons. Covered List Public 

Notice; see 47 CFR 1.50002. PSHSB will 

continue to update that list as 

appropriate. Although the Commission, 

through PSHSB, publishes and updates 

the Covered List, the equipment and 

services included on the list are 

identified by specific external sources 

enumerated in the Secure Networks Act. 

47 CFR 1.50002(b)(1)(i)–(iv). 

This Covered List identifies 

communications equipment and 

services that pose an unacceptable risk 

to the national security of the United 

States or the security and safety of 

United States persons. The Commission 

is required to include communications 

equipment and services on the list based 

exclusively on determinations made by 

Congress and by other U.S. government 

agencies. 47 U.S.C. 1601(c). Currently, 

the list includes equipment and services 

produced or provided by five entities: 

‘‘Telecommunications equipment 

produced or provided by’’ Huawei 

Technologies Company or ZTE 

Corporation, or their respective 

subsidiaries and affiliates, ‘‘including 

telecommunications or video 

surveillance services produced or 

provided by such [entities] or using 

such equipment;’’ and ‘‘Video 

surveillance and telecommunications 

equipment produced or provided by’’ 

Hytera Communications Corporation, 

Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology 

Company, or Dahua Technology 

Company, or their respective 

subsidiaries and affiliates, ‘‘to the extent 

it is used for the purpose of public 

safety, security of government facilities, 

physical security surveillance of critical 

infrastructure, and other national 

security purposes, including 

telecommunications or video 

surveillance services produced or 

provided by such [entities] or using 

such equipment.’’ Covered List Public 

Notice at 3. (As noted in this Public 

Notice, where equipment or services on 

the list are identified by category, such 

category should be construed to include 

only equipment or services capable of 

the functions outlined in sections 

2(b)(2)(A), (B), or (C) of the Secure 

Networks Act. 47 U.S.C. 1601(b)(2)(A)– 

(C)). Under the Secure Networks Act 

and the Commission’s new rule, part 1, 

subpart DD, inclusion of equipment and 

services on the Covered List precludes 

the use of federal subsidy funds—e.g., 

funds from the Commission’s Universal 

Service Programs—to obtain or maintain 

such equipment or services. 47 U.S.C. 

1602; 47 CFR 1.50000 et seq.; see 

Protecting Against National Security 

Threats to the Communications Supply 

Chain Through FCC Programs, WC 

Docket No. 18–89, Declaratory Ruling 

and Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 7821, 7825–28, 

paras. 16–22 (2020). 

This NPRM seeks comment on 

various steps that the Commission could 

take in its equipment authorization 

program, as well as its competitive 

bidding program, to reduce threats 

posed to our nation’s communications 

system. The Commission proposes 

revisions to its equipment authorization 

rules and procedures under part 2 to 

prohibit authorization of any ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment on the Covered List. It also 

seeks comment on whether to revise the 

rules on equipment currently exempted 

from the equipment authorization 

requirements to no longer permit this 

exemption for such ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment. In addition, it seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should revoke equipment authorizations 

of ‘‘covered’’ equipment, and if so under 

what conditions and procedures. 

Finally, we include questions 

concerning possible revisions to the 

Commission’s competitive bidding 

procedures that could address certain 

concerns related to ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment and services. Notably, the 

Commission must ‘‘periodically update 

the list . . . to address changes in 

[external] determinations . . . [and] 

shall monitor the making and reversing 

of determinations . . . in order to place 

additional communications equipment 

or services on the list . . . or to remove 

communications equipment and 

services from such list.’’ Secure 

Networks Act § 2(d)(1)–(2); see also 47 

CFR 1.50003. If one of the enumerated 

sources named in the Secure Networks 

Act modifies or deletes a determination, 

PSHSB will do the same and modify the 

Covered List accordingly. See 47 CFR 

1.50003(b) (if a determination regarding 

covered communications equipment or 

service on the Covered List is reversed 

or modified, directing PSHSB to remove 

from or modify the entry of such 

equipment or service on the Covered 

List, except if any of the sources 

identified in 47 CFR 1.50002(b)(1)(i)– 

(iv) maintains a determination 

supporting inclusion of such equipment 

or service on the Covered List). The 

Commission seeks comment on how 

future updates to the Covered List 

should affect our proposals in this 

Notice. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46647 

A. Equipment Authorization Rules and 

Procedures 

In this Notice, the Commission 

proposes revisions to the Commission’s 

equipment authorization rules and 

processes to prohibit authorization of 

any ‘‘covered’’ equipment on the 

Covered List. This prohibition would 

apply to ‘‘covered’’ equipment on the 

Covered List maintained and updated 

by PSHSB. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether its rules 

concerning equipment currently 

exempted from the equipment 

authorization requirement should be 

revised to ensure that any ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment cannot qualify for such 

exemption. In addition, it seeks 

comment on whether it should revoke 

any of the authorizations that have been 

previously granted for ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment on the Covered List, and if 

so, which ones and through what 

procedures. Finally, it seeks comment 

on new certifications for applicants that 

wish to participate in Commission 

auctions that would further address the 

risks posed by companies that the 

Commission has designated as posing a 

national security threat to the integrity 

of communications networks and the 

communications supply chain. 

1. Equipment Authorization Rules 

Under Part 2 

a. General Provisions of Subpart J 

The Commission’s equipment 

authorization rules and procedures, set 

forth in 47 CFR part 2, include 

requirements and processes for 

equipment marketing, authorization, 

and importation. The Commission 

proposes to adopt a new provision, 47 

CFR 2.903, as part of the ‘‘General 

Provisions’’ of subpart J, to provide 

general guidance regarding the 

prohibition on equipment 

authorizations with respect to 

communications equipment on the 

Covered List. In proposing this new rule 

section, the Commission seeks to 

establish a clear prohibition on 

authorization of any ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment in the Commission’s 

equipment authorization processes 

regardless of the process to which that 

equipment is subject. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposed rule. Is 

this rule sufficient to prohibit any such 

equipment on the Covered List from 

being authorized for use in the United 

States? What modifications or 

clarifications are needed to this 

proposed language to ensure that the 

rule is clear as to its scope and effect 

and attains results commensurate with 

its purpose to protect national security? 

Are there additional provisions that 

should be included here to more fully 

capture the scope of the Commission’s 

proposed prohibition? 

If the Commission were to adopt this 

proposal to revise the Commission’s 

subpart J equipment authorization rules 

to prohibit any further authorization of 

‘‘covered’’ equipment through the 

certification or SDoC processes, this 

decision would also serve to prohibit 

the marketing of such equipment that 

would now be prohibited from 

authorization under subpart I of the 

Commission’s part 2 rules (Marketing of 

Radio-Frequency Devices) and 

importation of equipment under subpart 

K (Importation of Devices Capable of 

Causing Harmful Interference) of the 

Commission’s part 2 rules. Section 

2.803(b) of subpart I only permits 

persons to import or market RF devices 

that are subject to authorization under 

either the certification or SDoC process, 

as set forth in the Commission’s subpart 

J rules, once those devices have been 

authorized, unless an exception applies. 

Similarly, the Commission’s proposed 

revisions in subpart J also would serve 

to prohibit importing or marketing of 

‘‘covered’’ equipment if it is subject to 

authorization through either the 

certification or SDoC process in subpart 

J and has not been authorized, per 

sections 2.1201(a) and 2.1204(a). The 

Commission seeks comment on the need 

to revise or provide clarification with 

regard to how the Commission’s 

proposed prohibition of authorization of 

‘‘covered’’ equipment affects the 

implementation of the Commission’s 

rules in either subpart I or subpart K. 

Would the general prohibition the 

Commission proposes for equipment 

subject to certification and SDoC make 

any changes to subparts I or K 

unnecessary? If not, what changes are 

needed to the Commission rules in 

those subparts? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

other revisions that it should make 

regarding equipment authorization 

either through the certification or SDoC 

rules and procedures. The Commission 

discusses and seeks comment on how 

the proposed rule should be 

implemented with respect to each of 

these processes, and whether other rule 

revisions or clarifications are 

appropriate. While the vast majority of 

RF devices are subject to either 

certification or an SDoC under the rules 

in subpart J, there is a limited category 

of devices that are exempt from these 

authorization processes. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how best to address this equipment. 

b. Certification Rules 

Background. As described in brief 

above, under the Commission’s 

equipment authorization rules, certain 

radiofrequency devices that have the 

greatest potential to cause harmful 

interference to radio services, must be 

processed through the equipment 

certification procedures. Certification 

generally is required for equipment that 

consists of radio transmitters as well as 

some unintentional radiators. Examples 

of equipment that requires certification 

include mobile phones, wireless 

provider base stations, point-to-point 

and point-to-multipoint microwave 

stations, land mobile, maritime and 

aviation radios, remote control 

transmitters, wireless medical telemetry 

transmitters, Wi-Fi access points and 

routers, home cable set-top boxes with 

Wi-Fi, and most wireless consumer 

equipment (e.g., tablets, smartwatches 

and smart home automation devices). 

Applicants are required to file with an 

FCC-recognized Telecommunication 

Certification Body (TCB) applications 

containing specified information. See 47 

CFR 2.907 (Certification), 2.911–926 

(Applications), 2.960–964 

(Telecommunication Certification 

Bodies), 2.1031–1060 (Certification). 

Each applicant is required to provide 

the TCB with all pertinent information 

as required by the Commission’s rules. 

See, e.g., 47 CFR 2.911(d), 2.1033(a). 

These requirements generally specify 

the information necessary to document 

compliance with the testing 

requirements that broadly apply to RF 

devices used under authority of the 

Commission, including devices used 

under licensed radio services and 

devices used on an unlicensed basis. 

Additional application information is 

required to demonstrate compliance 

with specific technical requirements in 

particular service rules (e.g., that 

antennas on certain unlicensed part 15 

devices are not detachable (47 CFR 

15.203) or that certain part 90 private 

land mobile transmitters meet required 

efficiency standards (47 CFR 90.203(j))) 

or other broadly applicable policyrelated Commission requirements (e.g., 

compliance with the Anti-Drug Abuse 

Act (47 CFR 1.2002; 2.911(d)(2))). By 

signing the application for equipment 

authorization (FCC Form 731), each 

applicant attests that the information 

provided in all statements and exhibits 

pertaining to that particular equipment 

are true and correct. The TCB then 

makes a determination as to whether to 

grant an equipment certification based 

on evaluation of the submitted 

documentation and test data. The 

Commission, through OET, oversees the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
46648 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

certification application process, and 

provides guidance to applicants, TCBs, 

and test labs through its pre-approval 

guidance (including its knowledge 

database system (KDB)) with regard to 

required testing and other information 

associated with certification approval 

procedures and processes. Applications 

that involve new technology or for 

which there are no FCC-recognized test 

procedures require a TCB to obtain preapproval guidance from the Commission 

before the application may be approved. 

47 CFR 2.964. Once a TCB makes a 

determination, either on its own or after 

consultation with the Commission, to 

grant an equipment certification, 

information about that authorization is 

publicly announced ‘‘in a timely 

manner’’ through posting on the 

Commission-maintained Equipment 

Authorization System (EAS) database, 

and referenced via unique FCC 

identifier (FCC ID). Once this original 

certification is granted, the device is 

subject to rules that specify 

requirements: for modifying equipment, 

marketing under or changing FCC ID, 

and transferring ownership of an FCC 

ID. 

The Commission’s part 2 rules also 

include various provisions that help 

ensure that equipment certifications 

comply with Commission requirements. 

The Commission is authorized to 

dismiss or deny an application where 

that application is not in accordance 

with Commission requirements or the 

Commission is unable to make a finding 

that grant of the application would serve 

the public interest. The rules also 

provide that the TCB or Commission 

may set aside a certification within 30 

days of grant if it determines that the 

equipment does not comply with 

necessary requirements. The rules also 

require the TCB to perform ‘‘post market 

surveillance’’ of equipment that has 

been certified, with guidance from OET, 

as may be appropriate. Revocation of an 

existing equipment authorization is also 

authorized for various reasons, 

including for false statements and 

representations in the application. And 

an authorization may be withdrawn if 

the Commission changes its technical 

standards. 

Discussion. The Commission proposes 

certain additional revisions to the 

Commission’s rules and processes 

regarding equipment certification. In 

proposing to revise the Commission 

equipment certification rules, the 

Commission goal is to design a process 

that efficiently and effectively prohibits 

authorization of ‘‘covered’’ equipment 

without delaying the authorization of 

innovative new equipment that benefits 

lives. 

The Commission proposes revising 

the equipment certification application 

procedures to include a new provision 

in section 2.911 that would require 

applicants to provide a written and 

signed attestation that, as of the date of 

the filing of the application, the 

equipment for which the applicant 

seeks certification is not ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment on the Covered List. 

Specifically, any applicant for 

certification would attest that no 

equipment (including component part) 

is comprised of any ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment, as identified on the current 

published list of ‘‘covered’’ equipment. 

This new provision also would crossreference section 1.50002 of the 

Commission’s rules that pertain to the 

Covered List. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. The 

Commission also invites comment on 

particular language that should be 

included in this attestation. For 

instance, to what extent should the 

Commission consider basing this 

attestation language on the certifications 

that providers of advanced 

communications services must complete 

to receive a Federal subsidy made 

available through a program 

administered by the Commission that 

provides funds to be used for the capital 

expenditures necessary for the provision 

of advanced communications services? 

Are there additional compliance 

measures beyond the attestation that the 

Commission should consider? Should 

the applicant have an ongoing duty 

during the pendency of the application 

to monitor the list of covered equipment 

and provide notice to the TCB or the 

Commission if, subsequent to the initial 

filing of the application or at the time 

a grant of certification, the equipment or 

a component part had become newly 

listed as ‘‘covered’’ equipment in an 

updated Covered List? 

Section 2.1033 discusses information 

that must be included in the 

application. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether there are revisions 

that the Commission should adopt in 

this rule provision that would further 

clarify the Commission proposals 

regarding prohibition of the certification 

of any ‘‘covered’’ equipment. What 

information may be pertinent to assist 

the TCBs and the Commission in 

ensuring that applications do not seek 

certification of ‘‘covered’’ equipment? 

Should the Commission require that the 

applicant provide certain information 

that would help establish that the 

equipment is not ‘‘covered’’ equipment 

to assist TCBs and the Commission in 

making determinations about whether to 

grant the application? For example, the 

Commission currently requires 

applicants to file block diagrams or 

schematic diagrams of their devices. 47 

CFR 1.50002 (Covered List). Should the 

Commission also require a parts list 

noting the manufacturer of each part? If 

the Commission were to adopt such a 

requirement, should it apply to all or 

only certain components? Which ones? 

How much additional burden, if any, 

would this place on applicants as 

compared to the current level of effort 

needed to prepare an equipment 

certification application? 

The Commission proposes to direct 

the Office of Engineering and 

Technology (OET) to develop guidance 

for use by interested parties, including 

applicants and TCBs, regarding the 

Commission’s proposed prohibition on 

certification of ‘‘covered’’ equipment. In 

particular, the Commission proposes to 

direct PSHSB, the Wireline Competition 

Bureau (WCB), the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, the 

International Bureau, and the 

Enforcement Bureau to assist OET in 

developing pre-approval guidance that 

provides the necessary guidance that 

TCBs can use and should follow in 

implementing the proposed prohibition. 

PSHSB, which is tasked with 

publication of the Covered List, and has 

significant responsibilities and expertise 

regarding ensuring that the nation’s 

public safety communications networks 

are secure, can lend important 

assistance by collaborating with OET to 

provide such guidance. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the current preapproval guidance rule (or the use of 

KDBs) should be revised or clarified 

consistent with the Commission goals in 

this proceeding. 

As the Commission has noted, 

following a TCB’s grant of certification, 

the Commission will post information 

on that grant ‘‘in a timely manner’’ on 

the Commission-maintained public EAS 

database. As the Commission has also 

noted, the TCB or Commission may set 

aside a grant of certification within 30 

days of the grant date if it is determined 

that such authorization does not comply 

with applicable requirements or is not 

in the public interest. To what extent 

should interested parties, whether the 

public or government entities (e.g., other 

expert agencies) be invited to help 

inform the Commission as to whether 

particular equipment inadvertently 

received a grant by the TCB and is in 

fact (or might be) ‘‘covered’’ equipment 

such that the grant should be set aside? 

Should the Commission consider 

adopting any new procedures for 

gathering and considering information 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46649 

on potentially relevant concerns that the 

initial grant is not in the public interest 

and should be set aside? Should such 

procedures be limited to certain parties 

(e.g., expert agencies), or certain 

minimal showings required by those 

that seek to raise questions about the 

grant? 

Section 2.962(g) of the Commission’s 

current rules expressly provides for 

‘‘post-market surveillance’’ activities 

with respect to products that have been 

certified. The Commission proposes to 

direct OET, in exercising its delegated 

authority, to provide TCBs with 

guidance on the kinds of post-market 

surveillance that should be conducted 

to help ensure that no equipment that 

subsequently has been authorized 

includes ‘‘covered’’ equipment that has 

not been authorized. Here, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

revisions or clarifications to the postmarket surveillance requirements 

should be adopted. Under existing rules, 

each TCB is required to conduct type 

testing of samples of product types that 

it has certified. OET has delegated 

authority to develop procedures that 

TCBs will use for performing such postmarket surveillance, including the 

responsibility for publishing a 

document on the post-market 

surveillance requirements that will 

provide specific information such as the 

numbers and types of samples the TCBs 

must test. OET may also request that a 

grantee of equipment certification 

submit a sample directly to the TCB that 

performed the original certification for 

its evaluation. TCBs also may request 

samples directly from the grantee. If in 

this post-market surveillance, the TCB 

determines that the product fails to 

comply with the technical regulation for 

that product, the TCB then notifies the 

grantee and the grantee must then 

describe actions taken to the correct the 

situation. The TCB provides a report of 

these actions to the Commission within 

30 days. 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on how the rules should be 

implemented, or revised or clarified, to 

ensure that equipment users will not 

make modifications to existing 

equipment that would involve replacing 

equipment (in whole or part) with 

‘‘covered’’ equipment. Should, for 

instance, the Commission revise or 

clarify its section 2.932 rules regarding 

modifications or the section 2.1043 

provisions concerning ‘‘permissive 

changes,’’ to promote the Commission 

goals in this proceeding? The 

Commission also notes that section 

2.929 of the equipment authorization 

rules includes provisions regarding 

changes in the name, address, 

ownership, or control of the grantee of 

an equipment authorization. An 

equipment authorization may not be 

assigned, exchanged, or in any other 

way transferred to a second party, 

except as provided in this section. 

Should the Commission consider any 

revisions or clarifications about how 

these provisions apply in light of the 

Commission proposals regarding 

prohibition on authorization of 

‘‘covered’’ equipment? For example, 

should the Commission prohibit the 

ownership or control of the certification 

for any equipment on the Covered List 

from being assigned, exchanged, or 

transferred to another party? 

Under the Commission’s part 2 rules 

concerning equipment authorization, 

various provisions are included that 

help ensure that applicants and TCBs 

comply with their responsibilities 

related to the Commission’s equipment 

authorization procedures set forth in 

part 2 subpart J. The Commission notes, 

for instance, that pursuant to section 

2.911(d)(1), applicants must provide a 

written and signed certification to the 

TCB that all statements in its request for 

equipment authorization are true and 

correct to the best of its knowledge and 

belief. TCBs, which are subject to the 

accreditation process, must comply with 

all applicable responsibilities set forth 

in the Commission part 2 rules for 

TCBs, and if the Commission were to 

adopt the proposal, would be obligated 

to prohibit the certification of any 

‘‘covered’’ equipment. In reviewing the 

applications, TCBs would be required to 

dismiss any application should they 

become aware that an applicant has 

falsely asserted that its equipment (or 

components of the equipment) is not 

‘‘covered’’ equipment. The Commission 

seeks comment on the implementation 

of these rules in the context of 

prohibiting certification of ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment, and any revisions or 

clarifications that may be appropriate to 

ensure that from this point forward 

applicants and TCBs comply with the 

proposed prohibition on authorization 

of ‘‘covered’’ equipment. Should the 

Commission’s existing rules or 

procedures concerning ensuring 

compliance be enhanced with respect to 

applicants that intentionally attempt to 

circumvent the rules or TCBs that 

repeatedly fail to meet their 

responsibilities to comply with the 

Commission proposed prohibition? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

revisions that could better ensure that 

applicants comply with the proposed 

requirements. Under the Commission’s 

current equipment certification rules, 

the grantee of the certification is 

responsible for compliance of the 

equipment with the applicable 

requirements as the ‘‘responsible party,’’ 

as set forth in section 2.909(a). In 2017, 

the Commission revised the rules 

applicable to equipment authorized 

through the SDoC process (discussed 

below) to require that the parties 

responsible under the SDoC rules for 

compliance of equipment authorized 

under those provisions must be located 

within the United States. 47 CFR 

2.909(b); 2.1077(a)(3). Many certified 

devices are also manufactured outside 

of the United States, and there may be 

no party within the country other than 

the importer that the Commission could 

readily contact if the equipment is not 

compliant with the Commission’s 

requirements. Accordingly, the 

Commission proposes adopting the 

same requirement previously adopted 

with regard to responsible parties in the 

SDoC process with regard to responsible 

parties associated with equipment 

authorized through the equipment 

certification process. The Commission 

seeks comment. Relatedly, the 

Commission has encountered 

difficulties in achieving service of 

process for enforcement matters 

involving foreign-based equipment 

manufacturers. Should the Commission 

also require that the applicant for 

certification of equipment include a 

party and/or an agent for service of 

process that must be located in the 

United States? How much additional 

burden, if any, would these 

requirements place on applicants as 

compared to the current level of effort 

needed to prepare an equipment 

certification application? Should the 

Commission impose a similar 

requirement on existing equipment 

certification grantees? If so, how would 

the Commission do so? If not, how 

should the Commission address the 

difficulty in obtaining service of process 

on certain foreign-based equipment 

manufacturers? 

As discussed above, PSHSB will 

periodically publish updates to identify 

the ‘‘covered’’ equipment and services 

that are on the Covered List. Under the 

proposals, the Commission accordingly 

directs that OET expeditiously take all 

the appropriate steps (e.g., updating as 

necessary the precise certification that 

applicants must make that no newly 

identified ‘‘covered’’ equipment is 

associated with the application, as well 

as updating any pre-approval guidance, 

KDB, or other guidance) to reflect those 

updates, consistent with the rules and 

procedures that the Commission 

ultimately adopts regarding the 

certification rules in this proceeding. 

The Commission invites comment on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
46650 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

appropriate means for OET to include 

updates of the ‘‘covered’’ equipment in 

an expeditious fashion in ways that best 

ensure that applicants, TCBs, and other 

interested parties will comply with the 

prohibitions concerning this updated 

identification of ‘‘covered’’ equipment. 

Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether there are other 

rule revisions or clarifications to the 

equipment certification rules and 

processes that the Commission should 

make consistent with the goals to 

prohibit authorization of ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment. Commenters should explain 

their suggestions in sufficient detail, 

including the reasoning behind the 

suggestions and associated issues (e.g., 

implementation). While the proposed 

prohibition would be reflected in the 

Commission’s rules and the engagement 

with TCBs in ensuring compliance, the 

Commission also seeks comment on any 

other types of action or activity (e.g., 

outreach and education) that would be 

helpful to ensure that all parties 

potentially affected by these changes 

understand the changes and will 

comply the prohibition associated with 

‘‘covered’’ equipment. 

c. Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity 

(SDoC) Rules 

Background. The Supplier’s 

Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) 

process is available for many types of 

equipment that have less potential to 

cause RF interference. Under the 

Commission rules, the types of 

equipment that may be processed 

pursuant to the SDoC procedures 

include fixed microwave transmitters 

(e.g., point-to-point or multipoint 

transmitter links as well as some links 

used by carriers and cable operators) 

authorized under part 101, broadcast TV 

transmitters authorized under parts 73 

and 74, certain ship earth station 

transmitters authorized under part 80 

(Maritime), some emergency locator 

transmitters authorized under part 87 

(Aviation), and private land mobile 

radio services equipment and 

equipment associated with special 

services such as global maritime distress 

and safety system, aircraft locating 

beacons, ocean buoys), certain 

unlicensed equipment (e.g., business 

routers, firewalls, internet routers, 

internet appliances, wired surveillance 

cameras, business servers, workstations, 

laptops, almost all enterprise network 

equipment, computers, alarm clocks) 

that includes digital circuitry (but no 

radio transmitters) authorized under 

part 15, certain ISM equipment (e.g., 

those that use RF energy for heating or 

producing work) authorized under part 

18. The SDoC process differs 

significantly from the certification 

process for equipment authorizations, 

and relies on determinations about the 

equipment made by the party 

responsible for compliance 

(‘‘responsible party’’ as defined in the 

rules) as to whether the equipment 

‘‘conforms’’ with the Commission’s 

requirements. Using the more 

streamlined SDoC process for the 

equipment authorization is ‘‘optional’’ 

insofar as the responsible party may 

choose to apply for equipment 

certification through the equipment 

certification process even if SDoC is 

acceptable under the Commission rules. 

In the SDoC process, the responsible 

party makes the necessary 

measurements and completes other 

procedures found acceptable to the 

Commission to ensure that the 

particular equipment complies with the 

appropriate technical standards for that 

device. The information provided with 

devices subject to SDoC must include a 

compliance statement that lists a U.S.- 

based responsible party. As set forth in 

the rules, the responsible party for 

equipment subject to the SDoC process 

could include the equipment 

manufacturer, the assembler (if the 

equipment is assembled from individual 

component parts and the resulting 

system is subject to authorization), or 

the importer (if the equipment by itself 

or the assembled system is subject to 

authorization), and could also include 

retailers and parties performing 

modification under certain 

circumstances. 47 CFR 2.909(b)(1)–(2); 

47 CFR 2.909(b)(3)–(4). The SDoC 

signifies that the responsible party has 

determined that the equipment has been 

shown to comply with the applicable 

technical standards. Given the 

streamlined nature of this particular 

process, responsible parties are not 

typically required to submit to the 

Commission an equipment sample or 

representative data demonstrating 

compliance. Also, while the 

Commission rules require that the 

equipment authorized under the SDoC 

procedure must include a unique 

identifier, the equipment is not listed in 

a Commission equipment authorization 

database, they are required to retain 

records on the equipment that 

demonstrate the equipment’s 

compliance with the Commission’s 

applicable requirements for that 

equipment. 47 CFR 2.1074; 47 CFR 

2.938. The Commission can specifically 

request that the responsible parties 

provide such information on particular 

equipment to the Commission. 47 CFR 

2.906(a); 2.945(b)(1). 

Discussion. The Commission proposes 

that any equipment produced or 

provided by any of the entities (or their 

respective subsidiaries or affiliates) that 

produce or provide ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment, as specified on the Covered 

List, can no longer be authorized 

pursuant to the Commission’s SDoC 

processes, and the equipment of any of 

these entities would have to be 

processed pursuant to the Commission’s 

certification rules and processes as 

proposed above. Accordingly, 

responsible parties would be prohibited 

altogether from using the SDoC process 

with respect to any equipment produced 

or provided, in whole or part, by these 

entities (or their respective subsidiaries 

or affiliates), and such equipment would 

be prohibited from utilizing the SDoC 

process. That is not to say that all 

equipment produced or provided by 

these entities currently subject to the 

SDoC process would be prohibited; as 

the Commission discussed above, under 

the current rules, responsible parties 

always have the option of seeking 

equipment authorization through the 

Commission’s equipment certification 

procedures. Under the Commission’s 

proposed rules, responsible parties 

would now be required to use the 

certification procedures for any 

equipment produced or provided by 

these entities, as the option of using the 

SDoC processes would no longer be 

available. This proposal will help 

ensure consistent application of the 

Commission’s proposed prohibition on 

further equipment authorization of any 

‘‘covered’’ equipment by requiring use 

of only one process, which includes the 

Commission’s more active oversight and 

proactive guidance when working 

directly with TCBs prior to any 

equipment authorization in the first 

place, and in guiding appropriate postmarket surveillance after any equipment 

authorization. The Commission finds 

this approach consistent with the public 

interest. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

the specific information that must be 

included in the SDoC compliance 

statement that will ensure that 

responsible parties do not use the SDoC 

process for ‘‘covered’’ equipment. This 

compliance statement would need to be 

sufficiently complete to require a 

responsible party to exercise necessary 

diligence with respect to the equipment 

that it is subjecting to the SDoC process 

that will ensure that it is attesting, in 

clear terms, that the equipment (or any 

component part thereof) is not produced 

or provided by any entity that has 

produced or provided ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment on the Covered List. This 

compliance statement should be crafted 

in such a manner as to assist responsible 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46651 

parties in identifying equipment that 

can no longer be processed through the 

SDoC process while also ensuring that 

responsible parties are held 

accountable, by their compliance 

statement, for any misrepresentations or 

violation of the prohibition that the 

Commission is proposing. The 

Commission notes that current rules 

require that the responsible party be 

located within the United States. 47 

CFR 2.1077(a)(3). As discussed above 

regarding equipment subject to the 

certification process, should the 

Commission also require that the 

compliance statement include the name 

of a U.S. agent for service of process (if 

different from the responsible party)? 

What steps should the Commission 

take to help inform responsible parties 

that use the SDoC process of this 

proposed prohibition, as well as the 

requirement that any equipment 

(including component parts) produced 

or provided by entities (and their 

subsidiaries and affiliates) that produce 

or provide ‘‘covered’’ equipment must 

be subject to the equipment certification 

process? The Commission notes that the 

rules allow many entities to take on the 

role of a responsible party under the 

part 2 rules, including retailers and 

parties performing modifications to 

equipment. The Commission seeks 

comment on how best to ensure that all 

responsible parties that use the SDoC 

processes to enable importing or 

marketing of equipment in the United 

States will understand and comply with 

the Commission’s proposed revisions 

with respect to equipment produced or 

provided by entities that produce or 

provide ‘‘covered’’ equipment on the 

Covered List. What types of actions or 

activities (e.g., outreach and education) 

to equipment manufacturers, 

assemblers, importers, retailers, parties 

performing modification under certain 

circumstances, and others that serve as 

responsible parties and use the SDoC 

process regarding particular equipment 

would be advised and most helpful? 

Should the Commission impose a 

similar requirement with respect to 

existing authorizations obtained through 

the SDoC process? If so, how would the 

Commission do so? If not, how should 

the Commission address the difficulty of 

obtaining service of process on certain 

foreign-based equipment 

manufacturers? 

As noted above, the Commission can 

specifically request that the responsible 

parties provide information on any 

equipment to the Commission that has 

been authorized through the SDoC 

process. Under the Commission’s 

proposal, in an effort to ensure that 

responsible parties are complying with 

the prohibition, the Commission would 

exercise its equipment authorization 

oversight, as appropriate, in requesting 

that the responsible parties provide 

information—e.g., an equipment 

sample, representative data 

demonstrating compliance, and the 

compliance statement itself—regarding 

particular equipment to the 

Commission. The Commission seeks 

comment on what kinds of situations in 

which such requests might be 

appropriate. What kinds of information 

might inform the Commission’s 

consideration as to whether any 

equipment may have been 

inappropriately processed through the 

SDoC process, thus triggering the 

Commission’s request for information 

from the responsible party to make sure 

that no violation of the Commission’s 

prohibition has occurred? 

As the Commission has discussed, 

PSHSB will periodically publish 

updates to identify the ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment on the Covered List. As with 

the equipment certification proposals 

above, the Commission would direct 

that OET expeditiously take all the 

appropriate steps (e.g., updating as 

necessary the information that SDoC 

applicants must make to establish that 

no newly identified ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment is associated with the 

application to reflect those updates), 

consistent with the rules and 

procedures that the Commission 

ultimately adopts regarding the SDoC 

rules in this proceeding. The 

Commission invites comment on 

appropriate means for OET to include 

updates of the ‘‘covered’’ equipment in 

an expeditious fashion in ways that best 

ensure that applicants, responsible 

parties, and other interested parties will 

comply with the prohibitions that the 

Commission has proposed. 

Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether there are other 

rule revisions or clarifications to the 

SDoC rules and processes that the 

Commission should make consistent 

with the goals to prohibit authorization 

of ‘‘covered’’ equipment. Commenters 

should explain their suggestions in 

sufficient detail, including the reasoning 

behind the suggestions and associated 

issues (e.g., implementation). 

d. 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 the proposed 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
46652 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

Does Congress’s inclusion of the phrase 

‘‘to be used,’’ rather than ‘‘used,’’ give 

the Commission authority to prevent the 

marketing and sale of equipment in 

addition to preventing licensees and 

others from using such equipment? 

Alternatively, does the ‘‘public 

interest’’ phrase in section 302 itself 

provide independent authority to deny 

equipment authorization to equipment 

deemed to pose an unacceptable 

security risk? 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. Would rules prohibiting 

authorization of equipment on the 

Covered List, or that otherwise poses 

security risks, be justified as 

implementation of CALEA? 

As noted above, the Commission 

believes it has ancillary authority under 

section 4(i) of the Act to adopt these 

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 proposed rules. 

e. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 

The Commission’s proposed revisions 

to the equipment authorization rules 

and processes to prohibit authorization 

of any ‘‘covered’’ equipment on the 

Covered List would apply only to 

equipment that has been determined by 

other agencies to pose ‘‘an unacceptable 

risk’’ to national security. The 

Commission has already concluded that 

it has no discretion to disregard 

determinations from these sources, 

which are enumerated in section 

1.50002(b) of its rules. Hence, the 

Commission accepts the determination 

of these expert agencies. 

Because the Commission has no 

discretion to ignore these 

determinations, the Commission 

believes that a conventional cost-benefit 

analysis—which would seek to 

determine whether the costs of the 

proposed actions exceed their benefits— 

is not directly called for. Instead, the 

Commission will consider whether the 

proposed actions would be a costeffective means to prevent this 

dangerous equipment from being 

introduced into the nation’s 

communications networks. 

The Commission therefore seeks 

comment on the cost-effectiveness of the 

proposed revisions to the rules and 

procedures associated with the 

Commission’s equipment authorization 

rules under part 2. Do the Commission’s 

proposed rules promote the goals of 

ensuring that the national security 

interests are adequately protected from 

equipment on the Covered List, while 

simultaneously continuing the mission 

of making communications services 

available to all Americans? Are there 

alternative approaches that would 

achieve this goal in a more cost-effective 

manner? 

2. Devices Exempt From the 

Requirement of an Equipment 

Authorization 

Background. Under the Commission’s 

rules, certain types of RF devices are 

exempt from demonstrating compliance 

under one of the equipment 

authorization procedures (either 

certification or SDoC). This exemption 

applies to specified digital devices in 

several types of products, including 

many part 15 devices (including 

incidental and unintentional radiators) 

because they generate such low levels of 

RF emission that they have virtually no 

potential for interfering with authorized 

radio services. Revision of Part 15 of the 

Rules Regarding the Operation of Radio 

Frequency Devices without an 

Individual License, GN Docket No. 87– 

389, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 

FCC Rcd 6135, 6140, para. 39 (1987). In 

other services, the Commission has 

determined that because operators must 

be individually licensed and 

responsible for their stations (e.g., 

Amateur Radio Service) or the type of 

operation poses low risk of harmful 

interference, such an exemption is 

warranted. See, e.g., 47 CFR 97.315. 

Exempt devices are required to comply 

with general conditions of operation, 

including the requirement that if an 

exempt device causes interference to 

other radio services the operator of that 

device must cease operating the device 

upon notification from the Commission 

and must remedy the interference. See 

47 CFR 15.5. 

The most diverse set of exempted 

devices operate under the part 15 

unlicensed device rules. The categories 

of part 15 exempt devices include 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46653 

incidental radiators, unintentional 

radiators exempt under section 15.103, 

and subassemblies exempt under 

section 15.101. Specifically, section 

15.103 of the Commission’s rules 

provides that certain unintentional 

radiators, which are subject to the 

general conditions of operation 

provided in part 15, are exempt from the 

specific technical standards and other 

requirements of part 15. This includes: 

(1) Digital devices used exclusively in 

any transportation vehicle as an 

electronic control or power system 

equipment used by a public utility or in 

an industrial plant, as industrial, 

commercial, or medical test equipment, 

or in an appliance (e.g., microwave 

oven, dishwasher, clothes dryer, air 

conditioner, etc.); (2) specialized 

medical digital devices; (3) digital 

devices that have very low power 

consumption (i.e., not exceeding 6 nW); 

(4) joystick controllers or similar 

devices used with digital devices; and 

(5) digital devices that both use and 

generate a very low frequency (i.e. less 

than 1.705 MHz) and which do not 

operate from the AC power lines or 

contain provisions for operation while 

connected to the AC power lines. Digital 

device subassemblies also are exempt 

from equipment authorization under 

section 15.101. Examples of 

subassemblies include circuit boards, 

integrated circuit chops, and other 

components that are completely internal 

to a product that do not constitute a 

final product. These include internal 

memory expansion boards, internal disk 

drives, internal disk drive controller 

boards, CPU boards, and power 

supplies. Subassemblies may be sold to 

the general public or to manufacturers 

for incorporation into a final product. 

Discussion. The Commission 

recognizes that ‘‘covered’’ equipment 

potentially could include equipment 

that currently is exempt from the need 

to demonstrate compliance under the 

Commission’s equipment authorization 

processes, which, to date, has looked 

only at the RF emissions capability of 

equipment. As noted above, most 

devices that are generally exempt from 

the Commission’s equipment 

authorization requirements typically 

have such low RF emissions that they 

present virtually no potential for 

causing harmful interference to the 

authorized radio services. However, the 

Commission’s concerns in relation to 

security considerations that pose 

unacceptable risks to the nation’s 

communications networks are distinct 

from the concerns related to interference 

to authorized services. As such, the 

Commission finds it necessary to assess 

the regulation of otherwise exempt 

devices in relation to security concerns. 

Accordingly, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should consider possible revisions or 

clarifications to its rules to address 

issues related to ‘‘covered’’ equipment 

and the potential of such equipment, 

regardless of RF emissions 

characteristics, to pose an unacceptable 

risk to U.S. networks or users. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Commission should revise its rules 

to no longer provide an equipment 

authorization exemption to ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether such a provision, 

if adopted, should apply only to part 15 

unlicensed devices or should include 

any device, regardless of rule part under 

which it operates, in the consideration 

of possible revisions or clarifications to 

the Commission’s rules to address 

issues related to ‘‘covered’’ equipment 

and the potential of such equipment, 

regardless of RF emissions 

characteristics, to nonetheless pose an 

unacceptable risk to U.S. networks or 

users. The Commission also asks 

whether it should require that any 

equipment (in whole or in part), 

regardless of claim of exemption, that is 

produced or provided by any entity that 

has produced or provided ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment on the Covered List be 

processed pursuant to the Commission’s 

certification rules and processes (similar 

to the proposal requiring use of the 

certification process for such equipment 

instead of continued use of the SDoC 

process). 

Currently, devices that are exempt 

from the equipment authorization 

requirement are not subject to FCC 

testing, filing, or record retention 

requirements. Such devices ordinarily 

would come to the attention of the 

Commission only in the event that 

harmful interference with other devices 

becomes an issue. In order to determine 

whether otherwise exempt ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment may present a security 

concern, the Commission would need to 

implement some means by which to 

identify such equipment that is in use 

in the United States. The Commission 

seeks comment on possible methods 

that the Commission could implement 

to identify otherwise exempt 

equipment. The Commission could, for 

instance, implement a registration 

system for otherwise exempt equipment 

produced or provided by any of the 

entities (or their respective subsidiaries 

or affiliates) that produce or provide 

‘‘covered’’ equipment, as specified on 

the Covered List. Such a system could 

require that relevant responsible parties 

notify the Commission of the marketing, 

importation, or operation of such 

otherwise exempt equipment. Such 

notification would include 

identification of the responsible party, 

manufacturer, or importer and the 

general operating parameters of the 

equipment. Another example includes 

an attestation at time of marketing or 

import that the equipment is not 

‘‘covered.’’ What are some potential 

burdens to responsible parties or other 

entities that would arise in connection 

with such a registration or attestation 

system? In what ways and to what 

extent would such burdens be 

acceptable to responsible parties to help 

protect the U.S. against the related 

security concerns? What type of 

information, and from which entities, 

should the Commission collect in order 

to identify otherwise exempt ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment? How many responsible 

parties would be impacted by these 

potential information collections and in 

what way would it impact their ability 

to conduct business? If the Commission 

were to revise its rules to remove the 

exemption with respect to ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment, the Commission seeks 

comment on any other types of action or 

activity (e.g., outreach and education) 

that also would be helpful to ensure that 

all parties potentially affected by these 

changes understand the changes and 

will comply the prohibition associated 

with ‘‘covered’’ equipment. 

The Commission discussed above the 

legal authority associated with the 

Commission’s proposal to prohibit 

authorization of ‘‘covered’’ equipment 

in its equipment authorization process. 

The Commission tentatively concludes 

that the legal bases enunciated above 

also provide, pursuant to section 302 

and section 4(i) of the Act, for actions 

that the Commission might take with 

respect to precluding ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment from being exempted from 

the equipment authorization process. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

If the Commission were to conclude 

that the rules should be revised to 

prohibit certain ‘‘covered’’ equipment 

from being exempted from the 

equipment authorization processes, this 

action would apply only to equipment 

that has been determined by other 

agencies to pose ‘‘an unacceptable risk’’ 

to national security. Because the 

Commission has no discretion to ignore 

these determinations, it believes that a 

conventional cost-benefit analysis— 

which would seek to determine whether 

the costs of the proposed actions exceed 

their benefits—is not necessary. Instead, 

as discussed above, the Commission 

will consider whether the proposed 

actions would be an effective means to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
46654 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

prevent this dangerous equipment from 

being introduced into the nation’s 

communications networks. 

3. Revoking Equipment Authorizations 

The actions that the Commission 

proposes above would serve to prohibit 

any prospective authorization of 

‘‘covered’’ communications equipment 

on the Covered List as posing an 

unacceptable risk to national security. 

Those proposed actions do not, 

however, address whether the 

Commission could or should revoke any 

existing equipment authorizations of 

such ‘‘covered’’ communications 

equipment, and if so, the processes for 

doing so. The Commission addresses 

those issues here. 

Background. Section 2.939 sets forth 

the Commission’s rules for revoking 

authorizations of equipment. Section 

2.939(a)(1) provides that the 

Commission may revoke an equipment 

authorization ‘‘[f]or false statements or 

representations either in the application 

or in materials or response submitted in 

connection therewith’’ or in records that 

the responsible party is required to 

maintain about the authorized 

equipment (e.g., drawings and 

specifications, description of the 

equipment, any test report, equipment 

compliance information). Section 

2.939(a)(2) states that the Commission 

may revoke an equipment authorization 

‘‘[i]f upon subsequent inspection or 

operation it is determined that the 

equipment does not conform to the 

pertinent technical requirements or to 

the representations made in the original 

application.’’ Section 2.939(a)(3) 

provides that the Commission may 

revoke an equipment authorization ‘‘[i]f 

it is determined that changes have been 

made in the equipment other than those 

authorized by the rules or otherwise 

expressly authorized by the 

Commission.’’ Section 2.939(a)(4) 

provides that the Commission may 

revoke any equipment authorization 

‘‘[b]ecause of conditions coming to the 

attention of the Commission which 

would warrant it in refusing to grant an 

original application.’’ As set forth in 

§ 2.939(b) of the Commission’s rules, the 

procedures for revoking an equipment 

authorization are the same procedures 

as revoking a radio station license under 

section 312 of the Communications Act. 

See 47 CFR 2.939(b); 47 U.S.C. 312. 

Finally, under § 2.939(c), the 

Commission also ‘‘may withdraw any 

equipment authorization in the event of 

changes in its technical standards.’’ 

Discussion. If the Commission adopts 

the rules proposed above to prohibit any 

further authorization of ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment on the Covered List, the 

Commission seeks comment here on the 

extent to which the Commission should 

revoke any existing equipment 

authorizations of such ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment pursuant to the 

Commission’s section 2.939 revocation 

rules. The Commission notes that if it 

revoked an existing equipment 

authorization, the marketing of that 

equipment would be prohibited 

pursuant to part 2 subpart I, per section 

2.803(b), and import and marketing 

would be prohibited pursuant to part 2 

subpart K, per sections 2.1201(a) and 

2.1204(a). 

The Commission tentatively 

concludes that sections 2.939(a)(1) and 

(2) would apply to ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment, such that the Commission 

has authority to revoke any existing 

equipment authorizations that may have 

been granted under false statements or 

representations (including nondisclosure) concerning whether an 

equipment authorization application 

that was subsequently granted had in 

fact included ‘‘covered’’ equipment (in 

whole or as a component part). 

Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., 

Ltd., 30 FCC Rcd 3501,3505, paras. 12– 

14 (EB 2015) (Shenzhen) (‘‘substantial 

and material questions exist as to 

whether the authorization should be 

revoked because the information in the 

application was false or misleading’’). 

This would enable the Commission to 

revoke any equipment authorizations 

that are granted after adoption of the 

rules proposed in this NPRM, even if 

the TCBs or the Commission had not 

acted to set aside the grant within the 

30-day period following the posting of 

the grant on the Equipment 

Authorization System (EAS) database. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

To assure that otherwise authorized 

equipment is not subsequently replaced 

by any ‘‘covered’’ equipment (whether 

in whole or with component part(s) of 

‘‘covered’’ equipment), the Commission 

also tentatively concludes that section 

2.939(a)(3) would apply, and that the 

Commission can revoke an existing 

equipment authorization if changes 

have been made in the equipment other 

than those authorized by the rules or 

otherwise expressly authorized by the 

Commission. Shenzhen, 30 FCC Rcd at 

3505–06, paras. 15–17 (Commission 

investigation demonstrated that the 

equipment marketed does not match the 

specifications described in the granted 

application). The Commission seeks 

comment on these and any other 

scenarios that implicate the need to 

revoke an existing equipment 

authorization to exclude ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment from the U.S. market. 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on other circumstances that would merit 

Commission action to revoke any 

existing authorization of ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment. Under what circumstances 

should the Commission revoke an 

existing authorization? For instance, to 

what extent does section 2.939(a)(4), 

which allows revocation ‘‘[b]ecause of 

conditions coming to the attention of 

the Commission which would warrant it 

in refusing to grant an original 

application,’’ provide guidance? 

Specifically, if the Commission would 

not have granted an application with 

equipment from an entity on the 

Covered List under newly adopted 

rules, then could the Commission use 

section 2.939(a)(4) to revoke an 

equipment authorization with said 

equipment that had been granted prior 

to the adoption of the rule? Shenzhen, 

30 FCC Rcd at 3506, paras. 18–20 (when 

Commission investigation determined 

device was a radio frequency jammer, 

‘‘substantial and material questions 

exist as to whether the application 

should have been granted’’), see also J 

Communications Co., Ltd., 19 FCC Rcd 

10643, 10645, para. 9 (EB 2004) 

(revoking GMRS radios because the 

Commission could have denied the 

original equipment authorization 

application for the devices ‘‘had this 

fact been made known to the 

Commission’’). The Commission seeks 

comment on this approach and on any 

other approach or particular 

circumstances that would merit 

Commission action to revoke any 

existing authorization that concerns 

‘‘covered’’ equipment on the Covered 

List. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

the applicability of section 2.939(c), 

which states that the Commission also 

‘‘may withdraw any equipment 

authorization in the event of changes in 

its technical standards,’’ with regard to 

revocation of authorizations that 

include ‘‘covered’’ equipment. In the 

event the Commission were to adopt 

rules barring new equipment 

authorizations for equipment on the 

Covered List, it tentatively concludes 

that such a change should constitute a 

change to the Commission’s technical 

standards that could warrant 

withdrawal of equipment authorizations 

that are contrary to these new rules. The 

Commission seeks comment. 

In addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on the specific procedures the 

Commission should use if and when it 

seeks to revoke an existing equipment 

authorization. Section 2.939(b) requires 

that revocation of an equipment 

authorization must be made in the 

‘‘same manner as revocation of radio 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46655 

station licenses,’’ and thus presumably 

would include the requirement that the 

Commission serve the grantee/ 

responsible party with an order to show 

cause why revocation should not be 

issued and must provide that party with 

an opportunity for a hearing. See 47 

U.S.C. 312(c). The Commission seeks 

comment on this requirement. What 

precisely are the procedures that the 

Commission should employ if seeking 

to revoke particular ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment? As the Commission 

discussed above, § 2.939(c) authorizes 

the Commission to ‘‘withdraw any 

equipment authorization in the event of 

changes in its technical standards.’’ 

Pursuant to this provision, should the 

Commission provide a suitable 

amortization period for equipment 

already in the hands of users or in the 

manufacturing process? If so, what 

would that be? What other factors 

should the Commission consider that 

might warrant revocation under the new 

rules, such as those applicable to Title 

III licenses under section 312 of the 

Communications Act? 47 U.S.C. 312. 

Should the Commission revise or clarify 

the existing requirements to enable the 

Commission to revoke authorizations of 

this ‘‘covered’’ equipment given that it 

already has been determined that the 

equipment poses an unacceptable risk? 

In considering whether any existing 

equipment authorizations of ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment should be revoked, is there 

some process in which the Commission 

should engage to help identify 

particular equipment authorizations that 

should be considered for revocation? 

What process should the Commission 

use to identify equipment 

authorizations for revocation? For 

example, to what extent might the 

Commission rely on others’ reports of a 

violation, and to what extent might such 

reports need to be supported in the 

record or independently verified? If the 

Commission were to conclude that 

revocation may be appropriate regarding 

particular ‘‘covered’’ equipment, this 

action would apply only to equipment 

that has been determined by other 

agencies to pose ‘‘an unacceptable risk’’ 

to national security. The Commission 

nonetheless recognizes the need to 

avoid taking actions that are overbroad 

in terms of affecting users of the 

equipment or would require removal of 

this equipment faster than it reasonably 

can be replaced. If the Commission 

concludes that revocation may be 

appropriate regarding particular 

‘‘covered’’ equipment, the Commission 

seeks comment on the appropriate and 

reasonable transition period for 

removing that particular equipment. 

This could include a transition period 

for non-conforming equipment to make 

any necessary modifications to 

communications equipment or services, 

including removing the ‘‘covered 

equipment’’ (in whole or as a 

component) from that equipment or 

service. To what extent should the 

Commission apply different transition 

periods to different equipment 

authorizations that the Commission 

revokes? Are there any situations that 

might merit immediate compliance with 

the new equipment restrictions? 

Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, 

the Commission must issue citations 

against non-regulatees for violations of 

FCC rules before proposing any 

monetary penalties. 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 

Such citations ‘‘provide notice to parties 

that one or more actions violate the Act 

and/or the FCC’s rules—and that they 

could face a monetary forfeiture if the 

conduct continues.’’ See Federal 

Communications Commission, 

Enforcement Bureau, ‘‘Enforcement 

Overview’’ at 10 (April 2020), https://

www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/public_

enforcement_overview.pdf. Given this 

requirement, what enforcement policy 

would be appropriate for the continued 

marketing, sale, or operation of 

equipment by such parties during this 

transition period? What, if any, 

educational and outreach efforts should 

the Commission undertake to inform the 

public regarding any such revocations 

and their legal effect? 

Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should make any revisions to § 2.939. 

Should this section be revised and/or 

clarified to specifically include 

‘‘covered’’ equipment or whether the 

rule should be clarified to better 

encompass the intent in this 

rulemaking? What other specific 

revisions might be appropriate for 

consideration? 

B. Competitive Bidding Certification 

Background. The Commission’s 

competitive bidding process requires 

each applicant to make various 

certifications as a prerequisite for 

participation in an auction. Requiring 

certifications as a condition of 

participation guards against potential 

harms to the public interest before the 

harms could occur. 

As described above, the Commission 

has designated Huawei and ZTE, and 

their subsidiaries, parents, or affiliates, 

as companies that pose a national 

security threat to the integrity of 

communications networks and the 

communications supply chain. See 

generally Huawei Designation Order, 35 

FCC Rcd 6604, ZTE Designation Order, 

35 FCC Rcd 6633. As a result of this 

determination, funds from the 

Commission’s Universal Service Fund 

may no longer be used to purchase, 

obtain, maintain, improve, modify, or 

otherwise support any equipment or 

services produced or provided by these 

covered companies. 

In reaching this determination, the 

Commission noted Huawei’s and ZTE’s 

ties to the Chinese government and 

military apparatus, along with Chinese 

laws obligating it to cooperate with 

requests by the Chinese government to 

use or access its systems. Huawei 

Designation Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 6609, 

paras. 13–14. However, it also is wellestablished that the Chinese government 

helps fuel Huawei’s growth by 

deploying powerful industrial policies 

to make Huawei equipment cheaper to 

deploy than the alternatives. Chuin-Wei 

Yap, State Support Helped Fuel 

Huawei’s Global Rise, Wall Street 

Journal (Dec. 25, 2019), https://

www.wsj.com/articles/state-supporthelped-fuel-huaweis-global-rise11577280736. These policies include 

both direct subsidies to Huawei and 

state-funded export financing. 

To illustrate, a recent report by the 

Center for American Progress found that 

China’s state-owned banks have 

provided billions of dollars to Huawei’s 

customers. Melanie Hart and Jordan 

Link, Center for American Progress, 

There Is a Solution to the Huawei 

Challenge (Oct. 14, 2020), https://

www.americanprogress.org/issues/ 

security/reports/2020/10/14/491476/ 

solution-huawei-challenge/. According 

to the report, these loans ‘‘can make 

Huawei impossible to beat—even if 

competitors can match the company’s 

state-subsidized prices—because 

China’s state banks offer packages that 

commercial banks generally cannot 

match.’’ Id. at para. 25. These loans may 

be run through Huawei or provided 

directly to Huawei’s customers. 

The Commission notes that the nature 

of state support for Huawei and ZTE has 

shifted over time. Recently, the 

Commission has observed how statefunded export financing may provide 

substantial funding to mobile operators 

already using equipment from Huawei 

or ZTE prior to national spectrum 

auctions in other countries. In one 

recent case, a Huawei customer was able 

to substantially outbid a rival new 

entrant in a spectrum auction—thereby 

denying entry to a new competitor that 

was planning on using trustworthy 

equipment in its 5G build-out. 

Distortionary financing intended to 

support participation in spectrum 

auctions of network operators who then 

deploy covered equipment and services 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
46656 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

may raise concerns about risks to the 

national security of the United States 

and the security and safety of United 

States persons. The Commission 

considers here the benefits of protecting 

against such risks prior to the start of a 

Commission auction. 

Discussion. Given recent 

developments internationally, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Commission should require an 

applicant to participate in competitive 

bidding to certify that its bids do not 

and will not rely on financial support 

from any entity that the Commission has 

designated under section 54.9 of its 

rules as a national security threat to the 

integrity of communications networks 

or the communications supply chain. 

Could such support implicate the kinds 

of influence over the applicant that 

would pose risks to national security? 

Or could it distort auction outcomes in 

ways that would pose risks to national 

security? What challenges would an 

applicant have in satisfying such a 

certification, given potential 

uncertainties regarding the ultimate 

origin of financial support? Can the 

certification be crafted to address these 

challenges? Do these uncertainties 

present difficulties for the Commission 

in enforcing the certification? How can 

these difficulties be mitigated? 

If the Commission adopts a 

requirement that an applicant certify 

that its bids do not and will not rely on 

financial support by an entity 

designated by the Commission as a 

national security threat, should the 

certification be limited to just the 

entities so designated by the 

Commission under section 54.9 or be 

more expansive? What are the 

challenges with including indirect 

provision of financing in the 

certification and how can they be 

mitigated to ensure it accomplishes its 

purpose? Should the certification be 

expanded to include an identified set of 

related entities, e.g., entities subject to 

control by an entity designated by the 

Commission? What entities should such 

a set include? How does the fungibility 

of financial resources complicate 

compliance? How can enforcement 

challenges be alleviated? 

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this present Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

(Notice). 5 U.S.C. 603. (The RFA, 5 

U.S.C. 601–612, has been amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA), Public Law 104–121, Title II, 

110 Stat. 857 (1996)). Written public 

comments are requested on this IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments on the 

Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). 5 U.S.C. 

603(a). In addition, the Notice and IRFA 

(or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 5 

U.S.C. 603(a). 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, we propose prohibiting the 

authorization of any equipment on the 

list of equipment and services (Covered 

List) that the Commission maintains 

pursuant to the Secure and Trusted 

Communications Networks Act of 2019. 

Secure and Trusted Communications 

Networks Act of 2019, Public Law 116– 

124, 133 Stat. 158 (2020) (codified as 

amended at 47 U.S.C. 1601–1609) 

(Secure Networks Act). (The 

Commission’s Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau maintains 

the list at https://www.fcc.gov/ 

supplychain/coveredlist). Such 

equipment has been found to pose an 

unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States or the 

security and safety of United States 

persons. We also seek comment on 

whether and under what circumstances 

we should revoke any existing 

authorizations of such ‘‘covered’’ 

communications equipment. Finally, we 

invite comment on whether we should 

require additional certifications relating 

to national security from applicants who 

wish to participate in Commission 

auctions. 

B. Legal Basis 

The proposed action is taken under 

authority found in sections 4(i), 301, 

302, 303, 309(j), 312, and 316 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 

303, 309(j), 312 and 316; and § 1.411 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.411. 

C. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, and Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions 

Our actions, over time, may affect 

small entities that are not easily 

categorized at present. We therefore 

describe here, at the outset, three broad 

groups of small entities that could be 

directly affected herein. See 5 U.S.C. 

601(3)–(6). First, while there are 

industry specific size standards for 

small businesses that are used in the 

regulatory flexibility analysis, according 

to data from the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) Office of 

Advocacy, in general a small business is 

an independent business having fewer 

than 500 employees. See SBA, Office of 

Advocacy, ‘‘What’s New With Small 

Business?’’ https://

cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2019/09/23172859/Whats-NewWith-Small-Business-2019.pdf (Sept. 

2019). These types of small businesses 

represent 99.9% of all businesses in the 

United States, which translates to 30.7 

million businesses. Id. 

Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(4). The Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue 

benchmark of $50,000 or less to 

delineate its annual electronic filing 

requirements for small exempt 

organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 

2018, there were approximately 571,709 

small exempt organizations in the U.S. 

reporting revenues of $50,000 or less 

according to the registration and tax 

data for exempt organizations available 

from the IRS. See Exempt Organizations 

Business Master File Extract (E.O. BMF), 

‘‘CSV Files by Region,’’ https://

www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/ 

exempt-organizations-business-masterfile-extract-eo-bmf. 

Finally, the small entity described as 

a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ is 

defined generally as ‘‘governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts, with a population of less than 

fifty thousand.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(5). U.S. 

Census Bureau data from the 2017 

Census of Governments (see 13 U.S.C. 

161) indicate that there were 90,075 

local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. See 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of 

Governments—Organization Table 2. 

Local Governments by Type and State: 

2017 [CG1700ORG02]. https://

www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/ 

gus/2017-governments.html. (Local 

governmental jurisdictions are made up 

of general purpose governments 

(county, municipal and town or 

township) and special purpose 

governments (special districts and 

independent school districts). See also 

Table 2. CG1700ORG02 Table Notes_

Local Governments by Type and State_

2017). Of this number there were 36,931 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46657 

general purpose governments (county, 

municipal and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations of less than 

50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 

U.S. Census of Governments data, we 

estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall 

into the category of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

Satellite Telecommunications. This 

category comprises firms ‘‘primarily 

engaged in providing 

telecommunications services to other 

establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ See U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, 

‘‘517410 Satellite 

Telecommunications,’’ https://

www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/ 

naicsrch?input=517410&search=

2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017. 

Satellite telecommunications service 

providers include satellite and earth 

station operators. The category has a 

small business size standard of $35 

million or less in average annual 

receipts, under SBA rules. See 13 CFR 

121.201, NAICS Code 517410. For this 

category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 show that there were a total of 333 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic 

Census of the United States, Table ID: 

EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject 

Series—Estab and Firm Size: Receipts 

Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS 

Code 517410, https://data.census.gov/ 

cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ4&

n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2012.

EC1251SSSZ4&hidePreview=

false&vintage=2012. Of this total, 299 

firms had annual receipts of less than 

$25 million. Consequently, we estimate 

that the majority of satellite 

telecommunications providers are small 

entities. 

All Other Telecommunications. The 

‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

category is comprised of establishments 

primarily engaged in providing 

specialized telecommunications 

services, such as satellite tracking, 

communications telemetry, and radar 

station operation. See U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, 

‘‘517919 All Other 

Telecommunications,’’ https://

www.census.gov/naics/?input=517919&

year=2017&details=517919. This 

industry also includes establishments 

primarily engaged in providing satellite 

terminal stations and associated 

facilities connected with one or more 

terrestrial systems and capable of 

transmitting telecommunications to, and 

receiving telecommunications from, 

satellite systems. Id. Establishments 

providing internet services or voice over 

internet protocol (VoIP) services via 

client-supplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry. Id. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for ‘‘All 

Other Telecommunications’’, which 

consists of all such firms with annual 

receipts of $35 million or less. See 13 

CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517919. For 

this category, U.S. Census Bureau data 

for 2012 show that there were 1,442 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic 

Census of the United States, Table ID: 

EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject 

Series—Estab and Firm Size: Receipts 

Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS 

Code 517919, https://data.census.gov/ 

cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ4&

n=517919&tid=ECNSIZE2012.

EC1251SSSZ4&hidePreview=false. Of 

those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual 

receipts less than $25 million and 15 

firms had annual receipts of $25 million 

to $49,999,999. Id. Thus, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

firms potentially affected by our action 

can be considered small. 

Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive 

Earth Stations. There are approximately 

4,303 earth station authorizations, a 

portion of which are Fixed Satellite 

Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. We do 

not request nor collect annual revenue 

information and are unable to estimate 

the number of the earth stations that 

would constitute a small business under 

the SBA definition. However, the 

majority of these stations could be 

impacted by our proposed rules. 

Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/ 

Receive Earth Stations. There are 

approximately 4,303 earth station 

authorizations, a portion of which are 

Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive 

Earth Stations. We do not request nor 

collect annual revenue information and 

are unable to estimate the number of 

fixed small satellite transmit/receive 

earth stations that would constitute a 

small business under the SBA 

definition. However, the majority of 

these stations could be impacted by our 

proposed rules. 

Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. There 

are 19 licensees. We do not request nor 

collect annual revenue information and 

are unable to estimate the number of 

mobile satellite earth stations that 

would constitute a small business under 

the SBA definition. However, it is 

expected that many of these stations 

could be impacted by our proposed 

rules. 

Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

services, paging services, wireless 

internet access, and wireless video 

services. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 

NAICS Definition, ‘‘517312 Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite),’’ https://www.census.gov/ 

naics/?input=517312&year=2017&

details=517312. The appropriate size 

standard under SBA rules is that such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. See 13 CFR 121.201, 

NAICS Code 517312 (previously 

517210). For this industry, U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2012 show that there 

were 967 firms that operated for the 

entire year. See U.S. Census Bureau, 

2012 Economic Census of the United 

States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ5, 

Information: Subject Series: Estab and 

Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for 

the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 517210, 

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ 

table?text=EC1251SSSZ5&

n=517210&tid=ECNSIZE2012.

EC1251SSSZ5&hidePreview=false&

vintage=2012. Of this total, 955 firms 

employed fewer than 1,000 employees 

and 12 firms employed of 1000 

employees or more. Id. Thus under this 

category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite) are small entities. 

Wireless Carriers and Service 

Providers. Neither the SBA nor the 

Commission has developed a size 

standard specifically applicable to 

Wireless Carriers and Service Providers. 

The closest applicable is Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite) (see U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 

NAICS Definition, ‘‘517312 Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite),’’ https://www.census.gov/ 

naics/?input=517312&

year=2017&details=517312), which the 

SBA small business size standard is 

such a business is small if it 1,500 

persons or less. Id. For this industry, 

U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 

that there were 967 firms that operated 

for the entire year. See U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the 

United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ5, 

Information: Subject Series: Estab and 

Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for 

the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 517210, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
46658 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ 

table?text=EC1251SSSZ5&

n=517210&tid=ECNSIZE2012.

EC1251SSSZ5&hidePreview=false&

vintage=2012. Of this total, 955 firms 

had employment of 999 or fewer 

employees and 12 had employment of 

1000 employees or more. Thus under 

this category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of Wireless Carriers and 

Service Providers are small entities. 

According to internally developed 

Commission data for all classes of 

Wireless Service Providers, there are 

970 carriers that reported they were 

engaged in the provision of wireless 

services. See Federal Communications 

Commission, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Industry Analysis and 

Technology Division, Trends in 

Telephone Service at Table 5.3 (Sept. 

2010) (Trends in Telephone Service), 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ 

attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf. Of 

this total, an estimated 815 have 1,500 

or fewer employees, and 155 have more 

than 1,500 employees. See id. Thus, 

using available data, we estimate that 

the majority of Wireless Carriers and 

Service Providers can be considered 

small. 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

The U.S. Census Bureau defines this 

industry as ‘‘establishments primarily 

engaged in operating and/or providing 

access to transmission facilities and 

infrastructure that they own and/or 

lease for the transmission of voice, data, 

text, sound, and video using wired 

communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS 

Definition, ‘‘517311 Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers,’’ https://

www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&

year=2017&details=517311. The SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard for Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers, which consists of all such 

companies having 1,500 or fewer 

employees. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS 

Code 517311 (previously 517110). U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

there were 3,117 firms that operated that 

year. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 

Economic Census of the United States, 

Table ID: EC1251SSSZ5, Information: 

Subject Series—Estab & Firm Size: 

Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 

2012, NAICS Code 517110, https://

data.census.gov/cedsci/ 

table?text=EC1251SSSZ5&

n=517110&tid=ECNSIZE2012.

EC1251SSSZ5&hidePreview=false. Of 

this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Id. Thus, under 

this size standard, the majority of firms 

in this industry can be considered 

small. 

Licenses Assigned by Auctions. 

Initially, we note that, as a general 

matter, the number of winning bidders 

that qualify as small businesses at the 

close of an auction does not necessarily 

represent the number of small 

businesses currently in service. Also, 

the Commission does not generally track 

subsequent business size unless, in the 

context of assignments or transfers, 

unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 

Private Land Mobile Radio (‘‘PLMR’’). 

PLMR systems serve an essential role in 

a range of industrial, business, land 

transportation, and public safety 

activities. Companies of all sizes 

operating in all U.S. business categories 

use these radios. Because of the vast 

array of PLMR users, the Commission 

has not developed a small business size 

standard specifically applicable to 

PLMR users. The closest applicable SBA 

category is Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite) which encompasses business 

entities engaged in radiotelephone 

communications. See U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, 

‘‘517312 Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite),’’ https://

www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&

year=2017&details=517312. The 

appropriate size standard for this 

category under SBA rules is that such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS 

Code 517312 (formerly 517210). For this 

industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 show that there were 967 firms 

that operated for the entire year. See 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic 

Census of the United States, Table ID: 

EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 

Series: Estab and Firm Size: 

Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 

2012, NAICS Code 517210, https://

data.census.gov/cedsci/ 

table?text=EC1251SSSZ5&

n=517210&tid=ECNSIZE2012.

EC1251SSSZ5&hidePreview=false&

vintage=2012. Of this total, 955 firms 

had employment of 999 or fewer 

employees and 12 had employment of 

1000 employees or more. Id. Thus under 

this category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of PLMR Licensees are 

small entities. 

According to the Commission’s 

records, a total of approximately 

400,622 licenses comprise PLMR users. 

This figure was derived from 

Commission licensing records as of 

September 19, 2016. (Licensing numbers 

change on a daily basis. This does not 

indicate the number of licensees, as 

licensees may hold multiple licenses. 

There is no information currently 

available about the number of PLMR 

licensees that have fewer than 1,500 

employees). There are a total of 

approximately 3,577 PLMR licenses in 

the 4.9 GHz band; 19,359 PLMR licenses 

in the 800 MHz band; and 3,374 licenses 

in the frequencies range 173.225 MHz to 

173.375 MHz. The Commission does not 

require PLMR licensees to disclose 

information about number of 

employees, and does not have 

information that could be used to 

determine how many PLMR licensees 

constitute small entities under this 

definition. The Commission however 

believes that a substantial number of 

PLMR licensees may be small entities 

despite the lack of specific information. 

Radio and Television Broadcasting 

and Wireless Communications 

Equipment Manufacturing. This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in manufacturing 

radio and television broadcast and 

wireless communications equipment. 

See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS 

Definition, ‘‘334220 Radio and 

Television Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing,’’ https://

www.census.gov/naics/?input=

334220&year=2017&details=334220. 

Examples of products made by these 

establishments are: Transmitting and 

receiving antennas, cable television 

equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 

cellular phones, mobile 

communications equipment, and radio 

and television studio and broadcasting 

equipment. Id. The SBA has established 

a small business size standard for this 

industry of 1,250 employees or less. See 

13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 334220. 

U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 

that 841 establishments operated in this 

industry in that year. See U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the 

United States, Table ID: EC1231SG2, 

Manufacturing: Summary Series: 

General Summary: Industry Statistics 

for Subsectors and Industries by 

Employment Size: 2012, NAICS Code 

334220, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ 

table?text=EC1231SG2&n=334220&tid=

ECNSIZE2012.EC1231SG2& 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46659 

hidePreview=false. Of that number, 828 

establishments operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees, 7 establishments 

operated with between 1,000 and 2,499 

employees and 6 establishments 

operated with 2,500 or more employees. 

Id. Based on this data, we conclude that 

a majority of manufacturers in this 

industry are small. 

Auxiliary Special Broadcast and 

Other Program Distribution Services. 

This service involves a variety of 

transmitters, generally used to relay 

broadcast programming to the public 

(through translator and booster stations) 

or within the program distribution chain 

(from a remote news gathering unit back 

to the station). Neither the SBA nor the 

Commission has developed a size 

standard applicable to broadcast 

auxiliary licensees. The closest 

applicable SBA category and small 

business size standard falls under two 

SBA categories—Radio Stations and 

Television Broadcasting. The SBA size 

standard for Radio Stations is firms 

having $41.5 million or less in annual 

receipts. See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS 

Code 515112. U.S. Census Bureau data 

for 2012 show that 2,849 radio station 

firms operated during that year. See U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census 

of the United States, Table ID: 

EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject 

Series—Estab and Firm Size: Receipts 

Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS 

Code 515112, https://data.census.gov/ 

cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ4&n=

515112&tid=ECNSIZE2012.

EC1251SSSZ4&hidePreview=false. Of 

that number, 2,806 firms operated with 

annual receipts of less than $25 million 

per year and 17 with annual receipts 

between $25 million and $49,999,999 

million. Id. For Television Broadcasting 

the SBA small business size standard is 

such businesses having $41.5 million or 

less in annual receipts. See 13 CFR 

121.201, NAICS Code 515120. U.S. 

Census Bureau data show that 751 firms 

in this category operated in that year. 

See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic 

Census of the United States, Table ID: 

EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject 

Series—Estab and Firm Size: Receipts 

Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS 

Code 515120, https://data.census.gov/ 

cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ4&n=

515120&tid=ECNSIZE2012.

EC1251SSSZ4&hidePreview=false. Of 

that number, 656 had annual receipts of 

$25,000,000 or less, 25 had annual 

receipts between $25,000,000 and 

$49,999,999 and 70 had annual receipts 

of $50,000,000 or more. Id. Accordingly, 

based on the U.S. Census Bureau data 

for Radio Stations and Television 

Broadcasting, the Commission estimates 

that the majority of Auxiliary, Special 

Broadcast and Other Program 

Distribution Services firms are small. 

Radio Frequency Equipment 

Manufacturers (RF Manufacturers). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard applicable to Radio Frequency 

Equipment Manufacturers (RF 

Manufacturers). There are several 

analogous SBA small entity categories 

applicable to RF Manufacturers—Fixed 

Microwave Services, Other 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, and Radio and 

Television Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing. A description of these 

small entity categories and the small 

business size standards under the SBA 

rules are detailed below. 

Other Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing. This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

manufacturing communications 

equipment (except telephone apparatus, 

and radio and television broadcast, and 

wireless communications equipment). 

See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS 

Definitions, ‘‘334290 Other 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing,’’ https://

www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/ 

naicsrch?input=334290&search=

2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017. 

Examples of such manufacturing 

include fire detection and alarm systems 

manufacturing, Intercom systems and 

equipment manufacturing, and signals 

(e.g., highway, pedestrian, railway, 

traffic) manufacturing. Id. The SBA has 

established a size standard for this 

industry as all such firms having 750 or 

fewer employees. See 13 CFR 121.201, 

NAICS Code 334290. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2012 show that 383 

establishments operated in that year. 

See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic 

Census of the United States, Table ID: 

EC1231SG2, Manufacturing: Summary 

Series: General Summary: Industry 

Statistics for Subsectors and Industries 

by Employment Size: 2012, NAICS Code 

334290, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ 

table?text=EC1231SG2&n=334290&tid=

ECNSIZE2012.EC1231SG2&

hidePreview=false&vintage=2012. Of 

that number, 379 operated with fewer 

than 500 employees and 4 had 500 to 

999 employees. Id. Based on this data, 

we conclude that the majority of Other 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturers are small. 

Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave 

services include common carrier, 

private-operational fixed, and broadcast 

auxiliary radio services. They also 

include the Upper Microwave Flexible 

Use Service, Millimeter Wave Service, 

Local Multipoint Distribution Service 

(LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message 

Service (DEMS), and the 24 GHz 

Service, where licensees can choose 

between common carrier and noncommon carrier status. There are 

approximately 66,680 common carrier 

fixed licensees, 69,360 private and 

public safety operational-fixed 

licensees, 20,150 broadcast auxiliary 

radio licensees, 411 LMDS licenses, 33 

24 GHz DEMS licenses, 777 39 GHz 

licenses, and five 24 GHz licenses, and 

467 Millimeter Wave licenses in the 

microwave services. (These statistics are 

based on a review of the Universal 

Licensing System on September 22, 

2015). The Commission has not yet 

defined a small business with respect to 

microwave services. The closest 

applicable SBA category is Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite) and the appropriate size 

standard for this category under SBA 

rules is that such a business is small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. See 13 

CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 

(previously 517210). For this industry, 

U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 

that there were 967 firms that operated 

for the entire year. See U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the 

United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ5, 

Information: Subject Series, Estab and 

Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for 

the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 517210, 

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ 

table?text=EC1251SSSZ5&n=

517210&tid=ECNSIZE2012.

EC1251SSSZ5&hidePreview=

false&vintage=2012. Of this total, 955 

firms had employment of 999 or fewer 

employees and 12 had employment of 

1,000 employees or more. Id. Thus 

under this SBA category and the 

associated size standard, the 

Commission estimates that a majority of 

fixed microwave service licensees can 

be considered small. 

The Commission does not have data 

specifying the number of these licensees 

that have more than 1,500 employees, 

and thus is unable at this time to 

estimate with greater precision the 

number of fixed microwave service 

licensees that would qualify as small 

business concerns under the SBA’s 

small business size standard. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that there are up to 36,708 

common carrier fixed licensees and up 

to 59,291 private operational-fixed 

licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio 

licensees in the microwave services that 

may be small and may be affected by the 

rules and policies discussed herein. We 

note, however, that the microwave fixed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
46660 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

licensee category includes some large 

entities. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

The proposals being made in this 

Notice may require additional analysis 

and mitigation activities to the part 2 

rules that include various provisions to 

help ensure the integrity of the 

equipment authorization process. The 

Commission is authorized to dismiss or 

deny an application where that 

application is not in accordance with 

Commission requirements or the 

Commission is unable to make the 

finding that grant of the application 

would serve the public interest. The 

rules also require the TCB to perform 

‘‘post market surveillance’’ of 

equipment that has been certified, with 

guidance from OET, as may be 

appropriate. 

The Supplier’s Declaration of 

Conformity (SDoC) process is available 

with respect to certain types of RF 

devices that have less potential to cause 

interference. The SDoC procedure 

requires the party responsible for 

compliance (‘‘responsible party’’) to 

make the necessary measurements and 

complete other procedures found 

acceptable to the Commission to ensure 

that the particular equipment complies 

with the appropriate technical standards 

for that device. At this time, the 

Commission’s current equipment 

authorization rules do not include 

specific provisions addressing the 

‘‘covered’’ equipment on the Covered 

List. This Covered List identifies 

communications equipment and 

services that pose an unacceptable risk 

to the national security of the United 

States or the security and safety of 

United States persons. The Commission 

is required to include communications 

equipment and services on the list based 

exclusively on determinations made by 

Congress and by other U.S. government 

agencies. Currently, the list includes 

equipment and services produced or 

provided by five entities. 

In this Notice we examine our rules 

relating to equipment authorization and 

participation in Commission auctions to 

help advance the Commission’s goal of 

protecting national security and public 

safety. This builds on other actions the 

Commission recently has taken to 

protect and secure our nation’s 

communications systems. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ 5 

U.S.C. 603(c). In this proceeding, our 

proposals are consistent with (2), in that 

our goal is to seek comment on various 

steps that the Commission could take in 

its equipment authorization program, as 

well as its competitive bidding program, 

to reduce threats posed to our nation’s 

communications system by ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment and services on the Covered 

List. We also seek comment on whether 

the Commission should revoke 

equipment authorizations of ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment, and if so under what 

conditions and procedures. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

None. 

List of Subjects 

Communications, Communication 

equipment, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Telecommunications, and Wiretapping 

and electronic surveillance. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed 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. Add § 2.903 to subpart J to read as 

follows: 

§ 2.903 Prohibition on equipment 

authorization of equipment on the Covered 

List. 

Any equipment on the Covered List, 

as defined in § 1.50002 of this chapter, 

is prohibited from obtaining an 

equipment authorization under this 

subpart. This includes: 

(a) Equipment subject to certification 

procedures: Telecommunication 

Certification Bodies and the Federal 

Communications Commission are 

prohibited from issuing a certification 

under this subpart for any equipment on 

the Covered List; and 

(b) Equipment subject to Supplier’s 

Declaration of Conformity procedures. 

■ 3. Amend § 2.906 by adding paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 2.906 Supplier’s Declaration of 

Conformity. 

* * * * * 

(d) All equipment produced or 

provided by any of the entities, or their 

respective subsidiaries or affiliates, that 

produce or provide ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment on the Covered List 

established pursuant to § 1.50002 of this 

chapter, is prohibited from obtaining 

equipment authorization through the 

Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity 

process. 

■ 4. Amend § 2.907 by adding paragraph 

(c) to read as follows: 

§ 2.907 Certification. 

* * * * * 

(c) All equipment produced or 

provided by any of the entities, or their 

respective subsidiaries or affiliates, that 

produce or provide ‘‘covered’’ 

equipment, as specified on the Covered 

List established pursuant to § 1.50002 of 

this chapter, must obtain equipment 

authorization through the certification 

process. 

■ 5. Amend § 2.909 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 2.909 Responsible Party. 

(a) For equipment that requires the 

issuance of a grant of certification, the 

party to whom that grant of certification 

is issued is responsible for the 

compliance of the equipment with the 

applicable standards. If the radio 

frequency equipment is modified by any 

party other than the grantee and that 

party is not working under the 

authorization of the grantee pursuant to 

§ 2.929(b), the party performing the 

modification is responsible for 

compliance of the product with the 

applicable administrative and technical 

provisions in this chapter. In either 

case, the responsible party must be 

located in the United States (see 

§ 2.1033). 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 46661 

■ 6. Amend § 2.911 by adding paragraph 

(d)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 2.911 Application requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(5) The applicant shall provide a 

written and signed certification that, as 

of the date of the filing of the 

application, the equipment for which 

the applicant seeks equipment 

authorization through certification is 

not ‘‘covered’’ equipment on the 

Covered List established pursuant to 

§ 1.50002 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 2.1033 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 2.1033 Application for certification. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) The identification, by name, 

mailing address and telephone number 

or internet contact information, of the 

manufacturer of the device, the 

applicant for certification, and the 

responsible party as defined in § 2.909. 

The responsible party must be located 

within the United States. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–16085 Filed 8–18–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

[ET Docket No. 21–264; FCC 21–83; FR ID 

41217] 

FCC Seeks To Enable State-of-the-Art 

Radar Sensors in 60 GHz Band 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes to revise the 

Commission’s rules to provide 

expanded operational flexibility to 

unlicensed field disturbance sensor 

(FDS) devices (e.g., radars) that operate 

in the 57–64 GHz band (60 GHz band). 

The Commission’s proposal recognizes 

the increasing practicality of using 

mobile radar devices in the 60 GHz 

band to perform innovative and lifesaving functions, including gesture 

control, detection of unattended 

children in vehicles, and monitoring of 

vulnerable medical patients, and it is 

designed to stimulate the development 

of new products and services in a wide 

variety of areas to include, for example, 

personal safety, autonomous vehicles, 

home automation, environmental 

control, and healthcare monitoring, 

while also ensuring coexistence among 

unlicensed FDS devices and current and 

future unlicensed communications 

devices in the 60 GHz band. 

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. 21–264, 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 call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anh 

Wride, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, 202–418–0577, anh.wride@

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), in ET 

Docket No. 21–264, FCC 21–83, adopted 

on July 13, 2021 and released on July 

14, 2021. The full text of this document 

is available for public inspection and 

can be downloaded at: https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeksenable-state-art-radar-sensors-60-ghzband-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 

Discussion. The Part 15 rules permit 

low-power intentional radiators 

(popularly known as ‘‘unlicensed 

devices’’) to operate without an 

individual license where such use is not 

anticipated to cause harmful 

interference to authorized users of the 

radio spectrum. Unlicensed devices in 

the 60 GHz band generally include 

indoor/outdoor communication devices 

such as WiGig wireless local area 

networking (WLAN) devices, outdoor 

fixed point-to-point communication 

links, and field disturbance sensors 

(FDS)—which includes radar 

operations. Unlicensed device users 

must account for the operations of 

authorized Federal and non-Federal 

users in the band, who operate under a 

variety of co-primary allocations. These 

allocations, which vary by band 

segment, consist of the Mobile, Fixed, 

Inter-Satellite, Earth-Exploration 

Satellite Service (EESS), Space 

Research, Mobile-Satellite, 

Radiolocation, Radionavigation, and 

Radionavigation-Satellite services. 

Section 15.255 of the rules stipulates 

operational policies and technical 

parameters for the 60 GHz band. The 

rule limits FDS operations to fixed 

operation or when used as short-range 

devices for interactive motion sensing 

(SRIMS). Furthermore, a fixed FDS with 

an occupied bandwidth fully contained 

within the 61.0–61.5 GHz band may 

operate with average output power 

levels up to 40 dBm and peak output 

power levels up to 43 dBm, while all 

other FDS devices (including those 

being used for SRIMS) are limited to a 

maximum transmitter conducted output 

power not to exceed –10 dBm and a 

maximum EIRP level not to exceed 10 

dBm. 

When it first adopted § 15.255 in 

1995, the Commission stated that its 

intent was to foster the potential of the 

60 GHz band ‘‘for allowing the 

development of short-range wireless 

radio systems with communications 

capabilities approaching those . . . 

achievable only with coaxial and optical 

fiber cable.’’ When it finalized the rule 

by adopting a spectrum etiquette three 

years later, it also included a provision 

that permitted fixed FDS operation in 

the band. 

In 2016, the Commission further 

expanded unlicensed device use in the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1