Drone Alliance and Others Question Need for More Gear Authorization Rules
Industry groups urged the FCC to take a careful approach in imposing new rules in response to a further NPRM that was approved in October as part of a broader order that tightens the agency's equipment authorization rules (see 2510280024). Reply comments were due this week in docket 21-232, but many of those filed can’t be opened because of a glitch that occurred during the brief federal government shutdown. FCC officials said they're investigating the problem.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The Commercial Drone Alliance questioned the net effect of restrictions on new categories of device components. Drones and similar equipment “contain hundreds of individual components, each of which would need to be traced to its original source,” the alliance said, noting that the same concern had been broadly raised in initial comments (see 2601060037). Manufacturers also “cannot reasonably be expected to certify component tracing compliance where certification depends on supplier disclosures beyond their control,” the group said. Substitutes may cost more, “increasing prices throughout the supply chain,” or not be available at all.
The Consumer Technology Association said other commenters agree that the FCC must take a “targeted, risk-based approach to any additional restrictions on component parts” and that reasonable transition periods for any new prohibitions, “informed by the production cycles of impacted sectors, will help ensure the continued availability of products on which the public relies.” The commission should also avoid changes to its marketing rules that would "impose burdens on consumers and complying entities without commensurate security benefits."
USTelecom said the FCC shouldn’t impose independent verification or other requirements on companies that use components “that go beyond the scope of current law.” Applicants seeking equipment authorization, manufacturers and importers are “in the best (or only) position to have direct knowledge of the equipment’s components” or “overall pedigree.” In addition, the group said it's against imposing requirements on “retailers, sellers and re-sellers, e-commerce websites, importers, distributors, or advertisers to ensure the public is aware of the authorization status of RF equipment.”
NCTA argued that expanding the FCC’s “covered list” to include additional component parts “would be an overly broad interpretation of the Commission’s statutory mandate and would create significant, unnecessary burdens.” Any new prohibitions should be “directly proportional to the scope of the underlying national security determination” by a federal agency identified in the Secure Networks Act, “should be targeted to address identified risks and must include reasonable transition periods informed by impacted productization cycles.”
Hikvision USA noted that numerous groups share its concerns about the proposed rules. Many commenters -- including carrier associations, broad-based manufacturers’ groups and “household names like Sony and Garmin -- oppose the FNPRM’s proposals because the Commission dramatically overreaches in violation of binding law and with enormously negative practical consequences,” said the company, which has a China-based parent. The proposals in the FNPRM also “far exceed” the FCC’s statutory authority over national security matters “and threaten to leave the FCC out-of-step -- or even in conflict -- with the national security entities to which Congress has explicitly delegated this role.”