Je veux savoir à propos de…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 2.962g of the Commissions 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:45 Aug 18, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 Commissions part 2 rules concerning equipment authorization, various provisions are included that help ensure that applicants and TCBs comply with their responsibilities related to the Commissions equipment authorization procedures set forth in part 2 subpart J. The Commission notes, for instance, that pursuant to section 2.911d1, 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 Commissions 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 Commissions current equipment certification rules, the grantee of the certification is responsible for compliance of the
PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

46649

equipment with the applicable requirements as the responsible party, as set forth in section 2.909a. 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
2.909b; 2.1077a3. 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 Commissions 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
E:FRFM19AUP1.SGM

19AUP1