CTA and TIA Urge Further FCC Clarification on Revised Gear Authorization Rules
The Consumer Technology Association and the Telecommunications Industry Association sought clarification of parts of the FCC’s October order further tightening its equipment authorization rules (see 2510280024). The order makes clear that “covered equipment includes modular transmitters” and prohibits such gear from authorization by companies on the FCC’s “covered list.” It also provides a process for limiting previously granted authorizations without restricting continued operation or use.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
In a petition posted Monday in docket 21-232, CTA and TIA asked the FCC to clarify that any actions under the new processes for limiting existing authorizations “are taken in a way that directly reflects specific determinations by national security sources enumerated in the Secure Networks Act.” They also called for the FCC to direct the Public Safety Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology “to engage with stakeholders in developing further guidance on how to evaluate whether a product is ‘produced by’ a specified entity.”
The adjustments would “significantly help the Commission ensure that ongoing implementation of the Secure Equipment Act remains aligned to the United States’ overarching risk posture and help reduce costs and uncertainty facing trusted manufacturers as they work to comply with these evolving rules,” the petition said.
The groups also noted that, in response to an FCC proposal to update its “covered list” of unsecure companies to reflect a January finding by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security on connected vehicles, industry emphasized the importance of adhering closely to those rules (see 2506300052). “Deviating” from “these important, carefully balanced scope, timelines and flexibilities would lead to misalignment between the Commission’s implementation and that of other agencies” and would undermine the administration’s policy goals “and create unnecessary and inconsistent regulatory burdens for manufacturers and suppliers,” they said.