FCC OET (DA 26-505) seeks comment on revised post-market surveillance procedures; comments due 19 June 2026

On 20 May 2026 the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) released Public Notice DA 26-505, "OET Seeks Comment on Revisions to Post-Market Surveillance Procedures," opening ET Docket No. 26-118. This is a request for comment, not a rule: OET is gathering input on what a revised post-market surveillance regime should look like before any procedures are changed. Comments are due on or before 19 June 2026 and reply comments on or before 6 July 2026.

The notice carries out a directive from the Commission itself. In the Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking — Promoting the Integrity and Security of Telecommunications Certification Bodies, Measurement Facilities, and the Equipment Authorization Program, FCC 26-28, 91 FR 27843, ET Docket No. 24-136 (the Second EA Integrity R&O) — the Commission agreed to update post-market surveillance to account for an evolving national-security threat landscape, and directed OET to seek comment on the updated information that the revised procedures should include. DA 26-505 is that follow-on step.

What is the comment timeline, and where do comments go?

• Public Notice released: 20 May 2026 (DA 26-505, OET).
• Comment deadline: 19 June 2026 — set at 30 days from release.
• Reply comment deadline: 6 July 2026 — set at 45 days from release.
• Docket: ET Docket No. 26-118 (newly opened by this notice; the underlying R&O sits in ET Docket No. 24-136).
• How to file: via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/, referencing this public notice. Paper filing instructions are in the notice.

Note that the deadlines run from the public notice's release date (20 May 2026), not from any Federal Register publication date. The 30/45-day periods are set under 47 CFR § 1.4(j). Comments are filed in ET Docket No. 26-118 — not in the 24-136 rulemaking docket where the R&O that prompted this notice was adopted.

How does post-market surveillance work today?

Under the current rules, TCBs are obligated to perform post-market surveillance by type-testing a certain number of samples of the total number of product types they have certified (47 CFR § 2.962(g)(1)), and to carry out that surveillance in accordance with ISO/IEC 17065:2012, incorporated by reference (47 CFR §§ 2.962(i), 2.910). OET supplies specific benchmarks designating which device samples TCBs must test and checklists to streamline surveillance reporting through KDB Publication 610077. TCBs are also obligated to ensure that equipment on the FCC's Covered List — equipment determined to pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security — does not receive equipment authorization. DA 26-505 leaves these obligations in place and asks how the surveillance mechanics around them should be revised.

What exactly is OET asking about?

OET seeks general comment on potential revisions to the post-market surveillance procedures, and lists specific questions:

1. Sampling quota: what percentage of certification grants should TCBs be required to sample in a calendar period, how should that quota be calculated, should it be calculated within the same calendar year, and are there alternatives the Commission should consider?
2. Sample-selection rationale and test venue: how should TCBs explain their reasoning for sample selection and the tests carried out; should a percentage of surveillance devices be tested by the TCB's internal test lab; and — given that most surveillance devices are tested at the same lab that issued the certification — is there benefit in requiring some surveillance testing to be done at a different lab than the certifying one?
3. Out-of-the-box testing: would it be beneficial for some surveillance devices to be tested 'out of the box' — activating the equipment under test organically — rather than relying solely on a manufacturer-provided test mode?
4. Voucher program: how can OET strengthen the existing voucher program in 47 CFR § 2.945(b)(1) to allow for more real-world testing of devices in the marketplace?
5. Escalation: what escalation methods should be used when a TCB needs to raise concerns — for example, when grantees are uncooperative in providing required samples, or when a TCB believes other TCBs are out of compliance with procedural standards?
6. Device-class targeting: are there certain device or equipment classes that should have required testing during surveillance?
7. Risk-based selection: should devices be selected for surveillance based on the power listed on their grant of certification — for example, prioritizing devices operating closest to the regulatory limits?
8. Public benefit and open-ended input: how can post-market surveillance testing be made more beneficial to the public, and are there alternative approaches or additional considerations not explicitly listed in the notice?

What does this mean for TCBs and manufacturers right now?

Right now it means nothing is required and nothing has changed. Current surveillance obligations under § 2.962 and the KDB 610077 benchmarks remain in force exactly as they are. DA 26-505 is the input-gathering stage that precedes any revised procedures. The substance worth tracking is directional: if OET later adopts changes along the lines of its questions, the sampling quota, the criteria for which units get pulled, the venue for re-testing (potentially a lab other than the certifying lab), and the use of out-of-box rather than test-mode procedures could all shift — each of which affects surveillance cost and logistics for TCBs and the manufacturers whose certified products they pull.

Because the underlying authority is the Second EA Integrity R&O (FCC 26-28), which the Commission framed in national-security terms, the eventual revisions are likely to lean toward more rigorous and less predictable surveillance — out-of-box activation, cross-lab re-testing, and limit-proximity targeting all point that way. Manufacturers with products near regulatory emission or power limits, or in device classes that OET may single out, have the most concrete reason to engage now while the criteria are still open.

What should commenters file by 19 June 2026?

1. Quota mechanics with data: concrete proposals on the sampling percentage and how to compute it (per calendar year vs. rolling), backed by TCB throughput or cost data, respond directly to OET's first and most consequential question.
2. Test-venue feasibility: evidence on the cost, turnaround, and capacity implications of requiring some surveillance at a non-certifying lab, or at a TCB's internal lab, is exactly the operational input OET asked for.
3. Out-of-box methodology: practical input on activating a device organically versus using manufacturer test mode — including where test mode is the only feasible path for a given technology — addresses an open methodological question.
4. Risk-based and class-based targeting: comment on selecting units by proximity to regulatory limits or by device class, including which classes warrant mandatory surveillance, helps OET calibrate scope.
5. Filing mechanics: file in ET Docket No. 26-118 via ECFS at https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/, reference DA 26-505, and meet the 19 June 2026 comment / 6 July 2026 reply deadlines. For questions, the notice names Katherine Nevitt, OET, as the contact.