What does an importer or distributor have to do about the FCC Covered List?

Only against one rulemaking. The Secure Equipment Act of 2021 bars the Commission, in the rules adopted under the Act, from providing for review or revocation of an authorization granted before those rules on the basis of the equipment being on the Covered List. A rule of construction in the next subparagraph provides that nothing in the section prohibits the Commission, “other than in the rules adopted under paragraph (1),” from examining the necessity of review or revocation or from adopting rules providing for it.

The 2022 order implementing the Act adopted no rules for review or revocation of existing authorizations and concluded that the Commission has authority to consider it. FCC 25-71 then added the § 2.939(e) procedure, which limits an existing authorization to bar continued importation and marketing without revoking it, effective December 26, 2025.

Source: Secure Equipment Act of 2021, Pub. L. 117-55, § 2(a)(3), 47 U.S.C. § 1601 note; FCC 22-84, 88 FR 7592, February 6, 2023; FCC 25-71, 90 FR 53227, November 25, 2025; 47 CFR § 2.939(e).

DA 26-635 prohibits importation and marketing of previously authorized covered equipment added to the Covered List in 2024 or earlier. The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) released it on June 26, 2026 in PS Docket 26-72. It was published at 91 FR 41023 on July 6, 2026 and took effect July 16, 2026, ten days after publication. It applies to equipment that received its authorization before the adoption of the 2022 rules.

It does not apply to any equipment added to the Covered List after 2024. Foreign-produced uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS), UAS critical components and routers are outside it for that reason.

For equipment under a use-based entry added March 12, 2021, the prohibition applies to importation and marketing for the covered purposes. It is suspended for the purpose of physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure until the Commission adopts a definition of that term. DA 26-635 provides that on the effective date of any Commission order adopting a definition, importation and marketing for that purpose will be prohibited. The Commission adopted a definition in the FCC 26-50 Third Report and Order, which takes effect October 13, 2026.

The prohibition does not apply to marketing activities excepted under statute and the Commission’s rules, which include marketing for use by the federal government, or to importation under the conditions of 47 CFR 2.1204(a)(3) through (11).

Source: FCC Public Notice DA 26-635, PS Docket No. 26-72, June 26, 2026, 91 FR 41023, July 6, 2026; 47 CFR §§ 2.807(d), 2.1204(a)(3)-(11), 1.50001(f); FCC 26-50, Third Report and Order, 91 FR 57798, September 11, 2026; Hikvision USA, Inc. v. FCC, 97 F.4th 938 (D.C. Cir. 2024).

DA 26-635 set the effective date ten days after Federal Register publication. The bureaus wrote that “a delayed, but looming, prohibition would encourage importers and marketers to flood the U.S. market with covered equipment.”

They disagreed with NCTA and USTelecom, which they said offered no specific data, on longer and more flexible transition periods to account for supply chain considerations, in-transit equipment, existing inventory and contractual obligations. They also disagreed with the suggestion of Hytera (HCC) to broadly exempt “equipment that is used for spare parts, updates and replacements” for existing devices. Allowing imports and marketing of replacements for existing covered equipment, the notice says, “would defeat the entire purpose of this prohibition.” For the position of units already imported and sold, see My supplier was just added.

Source: FCC Public Notice DA 26-635, PS Docket No. 26-72, June 26, 2026, 91 FR 41023, July 6, 2026.

Three, each in a bureau-level public notice seeking comment, and none is in force.

DA 26-742, released July 17, 2026 in PS Docket 26-184, would bar the previously authorized equipment of nine named producers, identified down to enumerated FCC IDs, and disclaims any other already-authorized covered equipment. The nine are Cogito, Fikaxo, Lyno Dynamics, Skyhigh Tech, Spatial Hover, SZ Knowact, WaveGo, Xtra and XAG. Comments were due August 31, 2026.

DA 26-758, released July 21, 2026 in PS Docket 26-189, would reach a whole category, previously authorized foreign UAS and UAS critical components meeting any of seven “military-grade” criteria. The criteria are a takeoff weight of 55 pounds or more, dispensing of “economic poison” under 14 CFR 137.3, thermal imaging, LiDAR, docking stations, being specially designed to incorporate a defense article, and swarming. Comments were due September 2, 2026.

DA 26-832, released August 10, 2026 in PS Docket 26-184, would bar the equipment of a tenth named entity, Anzu Robotics LLC, identified by FCC IDs 2BBYS-RAPTOR and 2BBYS-RRC01. It states that the prohibition would not apply to any other already-authorized covered equipment. Comments were due September 23, 2026, with no reply window. Gatewell’s comments on the three are at DA 26-742, DA 26-758 and DA 26-832.

Source: FCC Public Notice DA 26-742, PS Docket No. 26-184, 91 FR 48108, July 30, 2026; FCC Public Notice DA 26-758, PS Docket No. 26-189, 91 FR 48870, August 3, 2026; FCC Public Notice DA 26-832, PS Docket No. 26-184, 91 FR 54713, August 24, 2026.

Thirty days under the two named-entity notices, and a 180-day phase-out under the drone category notice.

DA 26-294, the March 27, 2026 notice in PS Docket 26-72, ran the 30 days from “the effective date of the prohibition.” DA 26-742 and DA 26-832 run them from “publication in the Federal Register.” DA 26-635, for comparison, took effect ten days after its publication. Neither notice says which publication starts the clock, the notice’s own or a later order’s.

Under DA 26-742 the duty to cease runs to “all parties.” DA 26-832 puts it on Anzu alone. DA 26-294 also asked whether an import prohibition should take immediate effect, with marketing following within 30 days, “to avoid a rush to import new devices.”

Source: FCC Public Notices DA 26-294, March 27, 2026; DA 26-635, June 26, 2026; DA 26-742, July 17, 2026; DA 26-758, July 21, 2026; DA 26-832, August 10, 2026.

DA 26-832 states that a § 2.939(e) prohibition would not apply to importation or marketing for federal government use or for commercial testing and product development, and would not affect continued use or operation of already-purchased covered equipment.

DA 26-742 would leave out aircraft on the Blue UAS Cleared List, domestic end products and equipment holding a Conditional Approval from the Department of War or the Department of Homeland Security. The drone category proposal, DA 26-758, would also leave out domestically produced UAS, non-military-grade foreign UAS, aircraft on the Blue UAS Cleared List, Buy American domestic end products and equipment granted a Conditional Approval. See Does a Conditional Approval protect a product I already sell?

Source: FCC Public Notice DA 26-742, PS Docket No. 26-184, July 17, 2026; FCC Public Notice DA 26-758, PS Docket No. 26-189, July 21, 2026; FCC Public Notice DA 26-832, PS Docket No. 26-184, August 10, 2026.

Not if the authorization has been limited under § 2.939(e). A limitation expressly does not revoke the authorization, so a model can hold a valid grant and still be barred from importation and marketing. DA 26-635 reaches equipment by the date its Covered List entry was added, while DA 26-742 and DA 26-832 name the FCC IDs they would reach.

On August 3, 2026, a week before DA 26-832 issued, OET temporarily deferred the grantee code of Anzu Robotics LLC. On August 11, 2026, under § 2.939(d), the chiefs of OET and PSHSB revoked both Odyssey Robot LLC authorizations, for a drone and its controller, effective as of the date of the order. For what the FCC ID proves about who made the device, see Is a vendor’s FCC ID enough?

Source: 47 CFR §§ 2.803(b), 2.1204(a)(1), 2.939(d), 2.939(e); FCC Public Notices DA 26-635, DA 26-742 and DA 26-832; Order of Revocation DA 26-839, ET Docket No. 26-186, August 11, 2026.

Not on their own. Section 2.903(d) requires each entity named on the Covered List to file the name, address, email and telephone number of itself and of each affiliate and subsidiary identified on the list as producing covered equipment. The Commission has proposed the statutory maximum against Dahua, Hytera and ZTE under that rule, in notices of apparent liability.

In the Hytera and ZTE notice, FCC 26-60, the Commission said the affiliate filings “widely differ[] from publicly available information.” The public information it cited was university procurement offices’ own subsidiary and affiliate lists, among them Georgia Tech’s, the University of Oklahoma’s and UC San Diego’s.

Source: 47 CFR § 2.903(d); FCC 26-7, February 19, 2026; FCC 26-60, August 28, 2026.

Through Enforcement Bureau Letters of Inquiry, run in parallel with the limitation docket. On August 31, 2026 the Bureau imposed ,000 forfeitures on seven of the nine companies named in DA 26-742, each for failing to answer a Letter of Inquiry about whether it had marketed in the United States radio-frequency equipment added to the Covered List on December 22, 2025.

The forfeiture orders find only the failure to respond. They do not find that any of the seven sells covered equipment, and they revoke, limit or suspend no authorization.

Source: Forfeiture Orders DA 26-912, DA 26-913, DA 26-914, DA 26-915, DA 26-918, DA 26-920 and DA 26-921, August 31, 2026; 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B).

Louisiana does, by statute, for state agencies and every parish, city, town and other political subdivision. La. R.S. 39:1753.1 bars them from procuring telecommunications equipment of Huawei or ZTE, and video surveillance or telecommunications equipment of Hytera, Hikvision or Dahua, including their subsidiaries and affiliates. La. R.S. 38:2237.1 restates the obligation in the public-contracts title.

Maine’s statute names no company. Under 5 M.R.S. § 2024, a local governmental entity may not use state funds in a contract with a company on the prohibited-companies list the state Chief Information Officer maintains.

Source: La. R.S. 39:1753.1, 38:2237.1; 5 M.R.S. § 2024 (P.L. 2023, c. 681).

An affidavit, before the procurement, that the equipment or services are not prohibited. A procurement in violation of the section is void. A vendor or other entity that gave the affidavit and is found to have supplied equipment that was prohibited at the time of procurement must, at its own expense, replace it with nonprohibited equipment of at least equal quality and performance. The procuring agency’s compliance is subject to audit by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor.

The prohibited category reaches any product or equipment, regardless of manufacturer, containing a prohibited item as a component. Under that paragraph the statute lists computers and other equipment containing a component that enables network connectivity, and building automation, environmental controls, access controls and facility management and monitoring systems.

Source: La. R.S. 39:1753.1(A)(4), (C), (D), (E); La. R.S. 38:2237.1.

Yes, because the UFLPA presumption turns on where a good and its inputs were made and by whom. It covers goods mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), and goods produced by an entity on the UFLPA Entity List. Either trigger is enough.

The presumption applies to downstream products that incorporate those goods as inputs, regardless of where the products are produced, including goods produced in or shipped through third countries. It has applied since June 21, 2022.

Source: Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, Pub. L. 117-78, § 3, 135 Stat. 1525; Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force, Strategy to Prevent the Importation of Goods Mined, Produced, or Manufactured with Forced Labor in the People’s Republic of China, § VI, June 17, 2022.

Thirty days, counted from the date the merchandise was presented to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for examination. Within that window the importer can request an applicability or exception review, filing its documentation through the Forced Labor Portal, or export or destroy the goods. CBP allows a maximum of two extensions, which should not exceed a total of 90 calendar days from the date of the detention notice, at its discretion and case by case. If the importer takes no action within 30 days, the shipment is deemed excluded.

CBP’s June 2026 guidance, Publication 5560-0526, supersedes the June 2022 guidance and splits enforcement in two. Where information indicates goods may have been made wholly or in part in the XUAR or by an Entity List entity, CBP detains them. Where it indicates they were, CBP excludes them directly, with no detention stage, and the importer’s route is a protest within 180 days. The importer pays storage for the duration of a review, and CBP may require a single-transaction bond of three times the value of the detained goods when forced labor is suspected. See UFLPA detentions.

Source: 19 CFR § 151.16; CBP, Forced Labor Enforcement Operational Guidance for Importers, Pub. No. 5560-0526, June 2026.

For an applicability review, CBP looks for documents produced in the ordinary course of business that trace the supply chain from the raw material stage to the finished imported goods. Its June 2026 guidance states that “documents like affidavits and redacted or untranslated documents are not sufficient for an applicability or exception review.” Foreign-language documents need English translations.

An applicability review, decided by the assigned Center of Excellence and Expertise, asks whether the goods were made in the XUAR or by an Entity List entity at all. An exception review, decided by the Forced Labor Division, accepts that they were and requires full compliance with the Strategy’s importer guidance, complete and substantive responses to every CBP inquiry, and clear and convincing evidence that the goods were not made with forced labor. A granted exception is reported to Congress within 30 days and made available to the public, in a report identifying the good and the evidence considered. The Strategy lets importers identify later shipments with supply chains identical to ones CBP already found admissible, to facilitate faster release.

Source: Pub. L. 117-78, § 3(b)-(c); CBP Pub. No. 5560-0526, June 2026; Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force Strategy, § VI, June 17, 2022.

Vendor-bench diligence is $15,000 to $50,000 across a portfolio, for importers, distributors and project developers. It is priced per vendor, $5,000 for a documentary review and $7,500 with independent supplier confirmations. Portfolio-wide bench diligence is $15,000 to $50,000 per holding, for private equity operating teams.

Site verification is $25,000 North America or $35,000 overseas per facility, plus $12,000 for each additional facility on the same trip. Travel sits inside the fee.

The Detention-Ready Package is $14,500 fixed and takes 10 business days. It delivers a full UFLPA Entity List screen of the supplier bench, an origin-evidence gap analysis by stock-keeping unit (SKU), and pre-built rebuttal dossiers for the five suppliers carrying the most volume. Half the fee credits against a full portfolio engagement. The Covered-List Exposure Diagnostic is $7,500 to $15,000 fixed, over two weeks.

Source: Gatewell Group Services, fees as of September 29, 2026.