Je veux savoir à propos de…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules incidental radiators, unintentional radiators exempt under section 15.103, and subassemblies exempt under section 15.101. Specifically, section 15.103 of the Commissions 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 Commissions 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 Commissions 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 Commissions concerns in relation to security considerations that pose unacceptable risks to the nations communications networks are distinct from the concerns related to interference to authorized services. As such, the Commission finds it necessary to assess
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:45 Aug 18, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 Commissions 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 Commissions 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,
PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

46653

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 Commissions 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 4i 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 benefitsis not necessary. Instead, as discussed above, the Commission will consider whether the proposed actions would be an effective means to
E:FRFM19AUP1.SGM

19AUP1