R Street Institute (R Street) also notes that determining compliance with the criterion would be difficult and suggests that we provide manufacturers flexibility in this regard, provided that they maintain documentation “demonstrating their internal logic regarding authorization.”46

46 R Street Comments at 2.

50 R Street Comments at 3-4; U.S. Chamber of Commerce Comments at 2; and CCIA Comments at 2-3.

51 R Street Comments at 4; Lincoln Network Comments at 3; and New America’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge, Consumer Reports, and Access Humboldt Comments at 4 (Public Interest Organizations).

88 INCOMPAS Comments at 6 and R Street Comments at 5.

While R Street agreed with the requirement,96 other supportive comments generally suggested that existing labeling requirements would be sufficient,97 or pointed to Commission guidance for temporary physical labels under the e-labeling procedures for RF devices.98

96 R Street Comments at 6-7.

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 we 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.104

104 R Street Comments at 9.

118 R Street Comments at 6; CTA Comments at 6-7; INCOMPAS Comments at 8; Lincoln Network Comments at 2, 4; and ITI Comments at 4.

Featured Publications