Cybersecurity Policy Report, Trade Groups, Importers Urge Clarity, Exemptions on FCC’s ‘Covered List’ Restrictions, (May 8, 2026)

By Lynn Stanton

Trade groups whose members generally are not subject to FCC “covered list” restrictions nevertheless have joined importers that have found themselves directly impacted by the list in urging the FCC to clarify exactly what equipment is covered and to take care to minimize disruptions to service providers and consumers already using equipment on which the agency is proposing to impose importing and marketing bans.

Parties were responding to a public notice (PN) issued by the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) in PS docket 26-72 in March seeking comment on a proposal to prohibit the importation and marketing of equipment that (1) was authorized before the agency’s 2022 adoption of rules prohibiting authorization of equipment on the covered list of services and equipment that have been determined to pose a national security risk to U.S telecommunications networks and (2) was added to the covered list in 2024 or earlier (CPR, March 31).

Hikvision USA, Inc., said, “The FCC has no power to write its own statutes. As Hikvision has argued to the D.C. Circuit in a pending case, the express language of the Secure Equipment Act—which excluded from its authorization new rules that would ‘review or revo[ke] any equipment authorization granted before the date on which such rules are adopted’—and Section 302 of the Communications Act do not grant the Commission the authority to revoke existing authorizations to import and market RF compliant electronics. As such, the Bureaus should not move forward with this proceeding until the courts resolve its statutory authority.”

Hikvision is currently challenging in court the FCC’s 2025 update of its equipment authorization rules that banned the importation, sale, and marketing of equipment that was placed on the covered list after being previously authorized (CPR, April 24).

“If the Bureaus choose not to wait, any order here should be stayed under 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(3) by operation of law, if, as will be the case, it is subject to an application for review. At a minimum, however, the Bureaus can and should voluntarily stay any decision pending Commission action on an application for review as well as any subsequent judicial review to avoid a significant unnecessary expenditure of resources and irreparable injury to Hikvision and others, including many American-owned small businesses and their residential and small business customers,” Hikvision added.

Hytera US, Inc. (H-US) said it had “suffered from inadequate information in the marketplace regarding the limited scope of Section 1601 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ‘Act’), 47 U.S.C. §1601, which defines ‘Covered Equipment’. As the Commission moves to broaden the scope of Section 1601 by reaching backward to already authorized equipment, it must provide greater clarity to the true scope of the FCC Covered List to afford full and accurate information to manufacturers, distributors, and potential customers so that they may participate in the marketplace in compliance with the law.”

Hytera Communications Corp. was in the first group of companies—all Chinese firms—whose equipment and services were placed on the covered list (CPR, March 15, 2021).

H-US said the FCC had held its equipment authorization applications since November 2022 “despite the fact that Hytera-produced devices marketed by H-US are designed specifically for the U.S. market. Because the devices are LMR/DMR equipment, they operate at transmit/receive (‘tx/rx’) speeds well below 200 kbps”—that is, slower than “telecommunications equipment as contemplated by the 2019 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act],” and thus is not covered equipment.

“Before it expands its enforcement of the FCC Covered List, the Commission needs to clarify for itself and for the public that, with respect to Hytera, the statutory reach of the FCC Covered List is limited to telecommunications equipment and video surveillance devices—and does not reach the LMR/DMR equipment H-US markets,” H-US said.

In separately filed comments, H-US parent Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd. (HCC) similarly argued that equipment with connection speeds below 200 kilobits per second was not subject to the covered list.

“In order to avoid disruption of the continued use of devices that consumers already possess, should the Commission persist in pursuing a prohibiting on the importation and marketing of equipment subject to an existing equipment authorization, the Commission should exempt the importation and marketing of equipment that is used for spare parts, updates and replacements for devices that consumers already possess,” HCC added. In the alternative, it urged the FCC to provide a process for consumers to be reimbursed if the unavailability of spare parts, updates, and replacements disrupts the use of devices already purchased.

NCTA also raised concerns about “the impact on providers and consumers who have already purchased and are using or deploying these devices.”

It said that “any restrictions on previously authorized products should: (1) [h]armonize with related supply chain and national security efforts underway across the federal government; (2) [i]nclude implementation plans that contemplate transition periods appropriate to the specific devices at issue to minimize disruption to consumers and the market; and (3) [c]learly identify the scope of products and marketing activities covered.”

USTelecom said it supported “a targeted prohibition on the future importation and marketing of Covered List equipment that was previously authorized, provided that the Commission (1) clearly delineates the scope of the prohibition, (2) preserves the ability of providers to operate and maintain existing networks, and (3) adopts reasonable transition mechanisms that avoid unintended disruption.”

It said any prohibition adopted in the proceeding should exempt spare and replacement parts; software updates and security patches; and routing maintenance and support services.

USTelecom urged the FCC to “adopt a longer and more flexible transition period of no less than 180 days, and consider phased implementation exceeding 180 days where appropriate.”

CTIA said it supported “the narrow proposal” in the PN. However, it urged the FCC to “approach any future post-authorization limitations with due consideration given to the potentially significant economic and supply chain impacts to the U.S. information and communication technology (‘ICT’) marketplace that such restrictions could create.”

It also said the FCC should recognize that the national security and economic considerations weighed in the PN “are largely unique to this proceeding and should not govern future efforts, particularly in light of the Commission’s steady expansion of the universe of covered equipment and factors that render equipment ‘covered’ pursuant to increasingly sweeping National Security Determinations.”

Going forward, the FCC should “carefully balance consumer, economic, and national security considerations in any future post-authorization limitation proceedings, giving sufficient opportunity for, and weight to, stakeholder input,” CTIA said.

“Finally, CTIA reiterates that revocation of previously granted equipment authorizations should remain a last resort, to be exercised only when appropriate national security agencies find that this step is warranted,” it added.

News: FederalLegislation DataSecurity