Je veux savoir à propos de…

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 Commissions 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 And an authorization may be withdrawn if the Commission changes its technical standards.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 Commissions 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:45 Aug 18, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 Commissions 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
PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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 Commissions 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 nations 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 TCBs 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
E:FRFM19AUP1.SGM

19AUP1