Allowing Earlier Equipment Marketing and Importation Opportunities
Similarly, Samsung suggests that delivery to an accredited test lab or TCB for testing would be an appropriate basis for a reasonable expectation of authorization. R Street Institute (R Street) also notes that determining compliance with the criterion would be difficult and suggests that the Commission provides manufacturers flexibility in this regard, provided that they maintain documentation “demonstrating their internal logic regarding authorization.”
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-labeling procedures for RF devices. No comments supported a temporary labeling requirement beyond that proposed by the Commission.
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.