Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 179 / Monday, September 20, 2021 / Rules and Regulations responsibility of the initiating party to the buyer in the event that the applicable equipment authorization process is not successfully completed, including information regarding any applicable refund policy. While most consumers are familiar with conditional sales, the Commission finds that requiring this information will minimize potential confusion for consumers who are unfamiliar with conditional sales. Although CTA
suggests that such disclosure could confuse consumers who are already aware of the applicable refund policy, the Commission finds such confusion unlikely, and finds on balance that the public interest is better served by making this information available to all consumers as part of the disclosure the Commission is requiring here. The Commission does not find that it is necessary to require standardized language for the disclosures nor does the Commission believes that it needs to take any additional measures to ensure that buyers are informed of the conditional nature of the sales contracts.
However, the Commission does find that it is important to ensure that devices are not delivered to consumers and that distributers, retailers, consumers, and other relevant entities are aware that the devices must not be operated before equipment authorization is complete. In addition to disclosures, the Commission is adopting the temporary labeling requirement for RF devices when parties engage in presale activities that the Commission proposed for imported devices and extending that requirement to devices under the marketing provisions adopted by this document for those same presale activities. In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment about requiring a temporary label on device packaging and what information that label should include. The Commission went on to propose that devices imported prior to certification under the new exception include a temporary removable label that includes a specific warning against premature operation, display, offers for sale, marketing, or sales and asked whether additional information should be incorporated into such a label. Garmin, INCOMPAS, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise specifically opposed such a requirement, generally stating that it would not be worth the investment in time and material. While R Street agreed with the requirement, other supportive comments generally suggested that existing labeling requirements would be sufficient, or pointed to Commission guidance for temporary physical labels under the e-

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:36 Sep 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

labeling procedures for RF devices. No comments supported a temporary labeling requirement beyond that proposed by the Commission.
The Commission continues to believe that a temporary label indicating the status of RF devices will provide a necessary safeguard against the inadvertent transfer of such devices to consumers and the Commission is adopting the rule in both the importation and marketing provisions with some modifications to the required language for consistency with other provisions in the new rules.
Specifically, when parties engage in presale activities, the Commission clarifies that the device or its packaging must prominently display a visible temporary label. This will ensure that the temporary label is not hidden inside the device packaging where it would not be visible. The Commission also clarifies that the device cannot be displayed to consumers, operated, or delivered to end users until successful completion of the applicable FCC equipment authorization process. The Commission is not adopting the Commissions proposal that the label on imported devices include language prohibiting offers of sale and marketing, thus ensuring consistency in labeling for both imported and domestic devices.
The devices must not be available to consumers until after the successful completion of the certification process and the Commission expects that at the time of sale they will be in compliance with all pertinent information, technical, labeling, and other requirements within the Commissions rules. Because the labels are temporary, the Commission finds that it would be unduly burdensome to require the inclusion of any additional information such as authorization status or specific contact information or otherwise include any specific compliance guidance with the rules. As to compliance via the Commissions existing requirements for electronic labeling e-labeling of RF devices, it appears likely that commenters are referring to 2.935f of the Commissions rules which requires an external removable label that addresses compliance with any applicable Commission requirements. However, in this case, as the temporary label requirement is specifically codified in the Commissions new rule, strict compliance with 2.935f is not necessary and would likely not be desirable.
Once authorization has been completed, the RF devices must comply with all pertinent Commission labeling and disclosure requirements. The
PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

52095

Commission adopts its proposal to allow, but not require, the anticipated FCC ID to be included if obscured by a temporary label until equipment authorization is successfully completed.
Otherwise, the Commission is not adopting requirements that specifically detail actions required to ensure compliance in this regard.
E. Retrieval and Tracking of Unauthorized Devices As proposed in the importation provision of the NPRM, the Commission is requiring processes to retrieve equipment to be in place prior to the commencement of pre-sale activities, and clarifying that those processes must be implemented, in the event that authorization is not successfully completed. In this regard, the Commission also asked several questions about the level of detail of the process that should be codified and the requirements for records retention and submission. With the exception of R
Street, commenters do not offer any specific suggestions regarding retrieving equipment if authorization were to be denied, but generally indicate that existing Commission processes are adequate, and advocate a light touch regulatory approach. R Street recommends that the Commission require RF device manufacturers to submit formal plans to retrieve devices to limit the ability for bad actors to let devices simply remain in the public sphere, rather than bear the cost of retrieving the devices. R Street suggests that these risks could be further limited by features such as a remote shutdown requirement on the devices, but notes that the benefits of such an approach may be limited by the costs of implementing it. The Commission had asked about this remote shutdown approach, noting some similarity to scenarios in which unauthorized devices operate under a part 5
experimental authorization.
In light of the expanded physical transfer provisions the Commission is adopting in its marketing rule, the Commission finds it necessary that the marketing provisions also require a process for retrieval of devices, and completion of that process, in the event that authorization is not successfully completed when parties engage in presale activities. Although the Commission is adopting this retrieval requirement in both the Commissions importation and marketing rules, the language of the two provisions varies slightly to accurately designate the party responsible for the retrieval activities.
For marketed devices, the burden is on the first party to initiate a conditional
E:FRFM20SER1.SGM

20SER1