Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

46650

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

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 Commissions 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. Suppliers Declaration of Conformity SDoC Rules Background. The Suppliers 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:45 Aug 18, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 Commissions 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 2.909b12;
47 CFR 2.909b34. 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 equipments compliance with the Commissions 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
2.906a; 2.945b1.
Discussion. The Commission proposes that any equipment produced or
PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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 Commissions SDoC
processes, and the equipment of any of these entities would have to be processed pursuant to the Commissions 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 Commissions equipment certification procedures. Under the Commissions 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 Commissions proposed prohibition on further equipment authorization of any covered equipment by requiring use of only one process, which includes the Commissions 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
E:FRFM19AUP1.SGM

19AUP1