[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 94 (Friday, May 15, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27884-27887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09821]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 2
[ET Docket No. 24-136; FCC 26-28; FR ID 345588]
Promoting the Integrity and Security of Telecommunications
Certification Bodies, Measurement Facilities, and the Equipment
Authorization Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC)
issues a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to
cease recognition of test labs, Testing Certification Bodies (TCBs),
and laboratory accreditation bodies in non-MRA or trade agreement
participants (i.e., non-Reciprocal Territories). The Commission also
seeks comment on modernizing data analytics capabilities, and explores
additional measures to protect intellectual property and national
security.
DATES: Comments are due on or before June 15, 2026 and reply comments
are due on or before July 14, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section
above. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS). You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket
No. 24-136, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People With Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Nevitt of the Office of
Engineering and Technology, at 301-317-0062 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in ET Docket No. 24-136, FCC 26-
28, adopted on April 30, 2026, and released on May 1, 2026. The full
text of this document is available for public inspection and can be
downloaded at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-28A1.pdf.
Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an
email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).
Ex Parte Presentations. The proceeding this document initiates
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance
with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
as amended (RFA) requires that an agency
[[Page 27885]]
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment
rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible/
potential impact of rule and policy proposals on small entities in the
FCC document. The IRFA is found in Appendix D of the Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission invites the general
public, particularly small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments
must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking indicated on the first page of this
document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them
as responses to the IRFA.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains proposed new or
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment
on any information collection requirements contained in this document.
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission
seeks specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.''
Accessing Materials
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 1189-
9, a summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be available at
https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
OPEN Government Data Act. The OPEN Government Data Act requires
agencies to make ``public data assets'' available under an open license
and as ``open Government data assets,'' i.e., in machine-readable, open
format, unencumbered by use restrictions other than intellectual
property rights, and based on an open standard that is maintained by a
standards organization. This requirement is to be implemented ``in
accordance with guidance by the Director'' of the OMB. The term
``public data asset'' means ``a data asset, or part thereof, maintained
by the Federal Government that has been, or may be, released to the
public, including any data asset, or part thereof, subject to
disclosure under [the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)].'' A ``data
asset'' is ``a collection of data elements or data sets that may be
grouped together,'' and ``data'' is ``recorded information, regardless
of form or the media on which the data is recorded.''
Synopsis
In this document, the Commission issues a Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on ceasing recognition of test
labs, TCBs, and laboratory accreditation bodies in non-Reciprocal FTA
Economies, modernizing data analytics capabilities, and explore
additional measures to protect intellectual property and national
security.
A. Requiring Test Labs, TCBs, and Laboratory Accreditation Bodies Be
Based in the U.S. or MRA Countries
In the First EA Integrity R&O, 90 FR 38045 (August 7, 2025), the
Commission decided to defer taking any action to no longer recognize
``test labs in non-MRA countries.'' The Commission reasoned that its
rules around foreign adversary ownership, control, and direction
``mitigate[d] the potential for national security threats arising from
test labs in foreign countries.'' However, the Commission also noted
that it ``intend[ed] to revisit this decision'' after reviewing the
information received from test labs, further consultation with federal
partners and others, and after conducting further consideration.
In the First EA Integrity FNPRM, 90 FR 31945 (July 16, 2025), the
Commission broadened its focus beyond core risks from foreign
adversaries--seeking comment on ``ways in which the Commission can
facilitate and encourage more equipment authorization testing and
certification within the United States'' and MRA countries. To achieve
this objective, a number of commenters proposed prohibiting the
recognition of test labs, TCBs, and/or laboratory accreditation bodies
in non-MRA countries, or related proposals. For example, the Hudson
Institute called on the FCC to ``revisit its decision in the First
Report & Order to reject an MRA/non-MRA distinction for the location of
test labs, TCBs, and laboratory accreditation bodies.'' RF Safety
Laboratory advocated for the closely related idea of withholding ``FCC
recognition from foreign test laboratories located in countries that
require in-country testing for market access.'' Commenters emphasized
not just national security, but also the importance of the reciprocity
commitments that MRAs provide, without which U.S. testing and
certification capacity is undermined and even ``hollow[ed] out.''
Therefore, based in part on these comments, the Commission reopens
the record on whether the FCC should adopt rules that would prohibit
the recognition of test labs, TCBs, or laboratory accreditation bodies
that are located in, or that conduct testing, certification, or
accreditation in, countries that lack an MRA or trade agreements that
provides for reciprocity with the U.S. (non-Reciprocal Economies) and
withdraw recognition of those test labs, TCBs, and laboratory
accreditation bodies already recognized. Should such a prohibition also
extend to any test lab, TCB, or laboratory accreditation body directly
or indirectly owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction
or direction of a non-Reciprocal Economy? The FCC seeks comment on
whether this would promote the trustworthiness and integrity of the
FCC's equipment authorization process. Would such a policy play an
important role in promoting national security, reciprocity in
international commerce in RF devices, and/or promoting the American and
Reciprocal Economy test lab, TCB, and laboratory accreditation body
industry?
Are there other reasons that the Commission should or should not
adopt these rules or any refinement of these proposed rules the
Commission should consider? The Commission notes that its rules already
effectively prohibit TCBs from operating in foreign countries that lack
an MRA with the United States and that, while OET has recognized
hundreds of test labs based in non-MRA countries, the Commission's
rules are ambiguous on the permissibility of this recognition. The
Commission notes that prior action in 2014 provided a process for
recognition of accredited test labs in countries with which there is no
operational MRA with the United States; prior to that 2014 action, test
labs from non-MRA countries had not been recognized. The Commission
seeks comment on how it should clarify or modify its rules to address
recognition of test labs from non-Reciprocal Economies. What would be
the consequences of such a proposal? If the Commission adopted this
proposal, should the Commission have a delayed implementation to
facilitate industry's adjustment to the new rules? If so, how long
should such a delay last? One year? Longer? Shorter? Should the
Commission additionally, or instead, phase out test labs, TCBs, and
laboratory accreditation bodies in non-Reciprocal
[[Page 27886]]
Economies as they come up for renewed recognition? Would this be a
better way to handle a transition period to phase out non-Reciprocal
Economies test labs than withdrawing recognition from all labs on a
certain date? The Commission welcomes all comments on this proposal. If
the Commission adopts this proposal, the Commission proposes to
delegate to OET to publish a list of Reciprocal Economies to which this
rule applies and update the list as necessary.
The Commission seeks comment on whether alternative measures could
be adopted to address the continued use of non-Reciprocal Economy test
laboratories in the equipment authorization process prior to the
implementation of the ultimate prohibition. Specifically, if the
Commission were to determine that ultimately prohibiting reliance on
non-Reciprocal Economy test labs were in the public interest, are there
alternative approaches that the Commission could take prior to
prohibition so as to mitigate the costs of transitioning to testing
with United States or Reciprocal Economy test labs? For example, should
the Commission add an additional fee corresponding with authorizing
equipment that is tested in non-Reciprocal Economy test labs? If the
Commission adopted such a fee what would be the appropriate amount? For
example, should this fee be $20,000? More? Less? Should this fee
increase over time and should the Commission specify the fee schedule
in advance? Should this fee be further tiered based on application
type, equipment classes, grantee entity type based on annual sales, or
scaled according to other factors? Alternatively, should the Commission
require a more rigorous equipment authorization process for applicants
that rely on non-Reciprocal Economy, which could, for instance, involve
additional post-market surveillance or auditing? Could the funds from
the proposed additional fee be earmarked for enhanced post-market
surveillance or auditing? Could the funds from the proposed additional
fee be earmarked for training hardware engineers, technicians, and
other skilled labor to support U.S.-based testing?
Are there other mechanisms that could incentivize stakeholders to
transition away from non-Reciprocal Economy test labs prior to the
imposition of an outright prohibition? For example, should the
Commission implement an additional waiting period for equipment tested
by non-Reciprocal Economy test labs to allow time for additional
scrutiny? Is any one of the alternatives more cost-effective than
others? Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the potential costs
and benefits of these approaches--including a permit fee structure,
and/or a prolonged review process, as opposed to an outright
prohibition--and invite stakeholders to provide quantitative or
qualitative estimates of the impacts on industry, consumers, and
Commission resources.
The Commission also seeks comment on what specific protections
should be given to intellectual property during the equipment
authorization process, including during the testing and certification
stages. What contractual, technical and procedural safeguards are
necessary to protect intellectual property? How effective are the
Commission's rules and the ISO/IEC 17025 requirements at preventing IP
theft? Do MRAs or other reciprocal trade agreements (FTAs and ARTs)
meaningfully reduce the risk of IP theft? Should safeguards differ
between Reciprocal and non-Reciprocal Economies? Is IP theft in non-
Reciprocal Economies a significant enough risk that non-Reciprocal
Economies test labs should be prohibited? Are there differences in the
IP protections available under different legal regimes? What other
options should the Commission consider to address this issue? What are
the costs and benefits of those solutions?
B. Other FNPRM Proposals (Not Adopted)
Expanding Equipment Authorization Program Prohibitions (EA
Integrity FNPRM at paras. 128-142): At this time, the Commission is not
adopting further MRA vs non-MRA restrictions discussed in the EA
Integrity FNPRM at para. 128, such as Other Entities Potentially
Controlled by a Foreign Adversary. Likewise, the Commission is not
adopting revisions to the definition of ``foreign adversary'' listed
under the EA Integrity FNPRM at para. 135. At this time, the Commission
is not adopting any changes to other federal agency lists to consider
in the definition of ``prohibited entity'' listed in the FNPRM at para.
140. The Commission keeps the record open on these points.
Other Matters--TCB and Test Lab relationships (EA Integrity FNPRM
at para. 146): At this time, the Commission will not be adopting the
proposal to ``restrict the relationships between TCBs and test labs to
prevent TCBs from reviewing authorization applications for which the
equipment was tested by a test lab owned by, or under the direction or
control of the same entities that own, direct, or control the TCB,'' as
presented in the EA Integrity FNPRM at para. 146. The Commission keeps
the record open on these points.
Other Matters--Supplier's Declaration of Conformity Procedures (EA
Integrity FNPRM at para. 147): At this time, the Commission is not
adopting requirement for SDoCs to be tested at accredited test labs.
The Commission keeps the record open on these points.
This document seeks further comment on adopting any other measures
not adopted in the above portion of this document to expand and
streamline testing and certification in United States and allied
countries based on other comments the Commission received.
C. Data Analytics Capability and Need for Modern EAS Database
On July 12, 2024, IPVM submitted a comment in this proceeding
suggesting that investigating evasions of the FCC equipment
authorization requires modernized FCC equipment authorization
databases. The Commission seeks comment on this suggestion. What
features would be helpful in the Commission's effort to modernize the
EAS system, both to support the FCC's enforcement priorities while also
streamlining and alleviating administrative burden on the Commission's
TCB partners and other participants in the equipment authorization
process? What, if any, changes to the information collection would be
helpful, and what portions of the process can be streamlined or done in
a more parallel fashion? How can the Commission better share
information and other data so that TCBs reviewing equipment
authorizations applications for prohibited entities can do so more
effectively and efficiently? The Commission welcomes all comments and
proposals.
Ordering Clauses
It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4(i),
229, 301, 302, 303, 309, 312, 403, and 503 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 229, 301, 302a, 303, 309, 312,
403, and 503, section 105 of the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C. 1004; the Secure and Trusted Communications
Networks Act of 2019, 47 U.S.C. 1601 1609; and the Secure Equipment Act
of 2021, Public Law 117 55, 135 Stat. 423, 47 U.S.C. 1601 note, that
this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
It is ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary, shall
send a copy of this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses,
[[Page 27887]]
to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office
of Advocacy.
It is ordered that the Office of the Managing Director, Performance
Program Management, shall send a copy of the Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1 and 2
Administrative practice and procedures, Communications,
Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Aleta Bowers,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1 and 2 as
follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 47
U.S.C. 1754, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Revise Sec. 1.103 to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1103 Schedule of charges for equipment approval, experimental
radio services (or service).
Table 1 to Sec. 1.1103
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of application PMT type code Fee amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment of Grantee Code......... EAG................... $35.00
New Station Authorization.......... EAE................... 140.00
Modification of Authorization...... EAE................... 140.00
Renewal of Station Authorization... EAE................... 140.00
Assignment of License or Transfer EAE................... 140.00
of Control.
Special Temporary Authority........ EAE................... 140.00
Confidentiality Request............ EAD................... 50.00
Device Testing in Non-MRA Country.. [TBD]................. 20,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
3. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
0
4. Amend Sec. 2.941 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 2.941 Availability of Information relating to grants.
* * * * *
(c) Equipment authorization will be made available and searchable
in machine-readable format to the extent possible.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 2.949 by adding paragraphs (c)(4) and (e)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.949 Recognition of laboratory accreditation bodies.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) Is located in or conducts accreditation in countries that lack
a relevant Mutual Recognition Agreement or trade agreement that
provides for reciprocity with the U.S.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) Is located in or conducts accreditation from within countries
that lack a relevant Mutual Recognition Agreement or trade agreement
that provides for reciprocity with the U.S.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 2.951 by adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (d)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.951 Recognition of measurement facilities.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Is located in or that conducts testing from within a country
that lacks an MRA or trade agreement that provides for reciprocity with
the U.S.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) Is located in or that conducts testing from within a country
that lacks an MRA or trade agreement that provides for reciprocity with
the U.S.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 2.960 by adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (h)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.960 Recognition of Telecommunications Certification Bodies
(TCBs)
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Is located in or that conducts certification from within a
country that lacks an MRA or trade agreement that provides for
reciprocity with the U.S.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(4) Is located in or that conducts certification from within a
country that lacks an MRA or trade agreement that provides for
reciprocity with the U.S.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-09821 Filed 5-14-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P