What is the FCC’s logic-bearing hardware component rule?

A device cannot obtain an FCC equipment authorization if it incorporates a logic-bearing hardware component produced by an entity identified on the Covered List, where the device would be barred had that entity produced the device itself. The rule is 47 CFR § 2.903(b)(2). It applies to both routes to authorization, certification and the Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity.

The Commission gives an example. If Device X produced by Entity A is on the Covered List, the Commission will refuse a Device X that incorporates an Entity A logic-bearing component, no matter who produced the rest of the device.

The rule was adopted in the Third Report and Order in ET Docket 21-232, released July 23, 2026 and published in the Federal Register on September 11, 2026. It extends the approach the Commission took to modular transmitters in 2025. Gatewell’s comments on the proposals issued with the order are at FCC 26-50, and its reply comments are at FCC 26-50 reply.

Source: 47 CFR § 2.903(b)(2); FCC 26-50, Third Report and Order, ¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, released July 23, 2026; 91 FR 57798, September 11, 2026.

Any device, system, module, sub-assembly, integrated circuit or other physical component that generates and uses timing signals or pulses at a rate above 9,000 cycles per second and uses digital techniques. The definition also takes in a component that generates and uses radio frequency energy to perform data processing. It is a new definition in 47 CFR § 2.902, written from the Commission’s long-standing definition of a digital device in § 15.3(k).

The order calls wireless chipsets, trusted platform modules and cryptographic elements representative examples. Commenters it quotes name semiconductors, IoT and cellular modules, optical transceivers, baseband processors and printed circuit boards.

Parts that are fixed, non-programmable and use no digital techniques are outside the definition. The order lists housings, brackets and fasteners, simple resistors and capacitors, wiring and connectors, a plain battery cell, and a bare motor. It says a battery management system and a motor controller board would likely qualify. The Office of Engineering and Technology has delegated authority to answer questions about what meets the definition.

Source: 47 CFR §§ 2.902, 15.3(k); FCC 26-50 ¶¶ 22, 28, 29.

October 13, 2026, the effective date in the Federal Register notice of September 11, 2026. The rule applies to applications for new equipment authorizations. Equipment authorized before that date is not affected and may continue to be marketed, imported and used under its existing authorization.

Two later dates in the same order apply to online marketplaces. The duty to display an FCC ID begins March 1, 2027 for some marketplaces and June 1, 2027 for the others.

Source: 91 FR 57798, September 11, 2026; FCC 26-50 ¶ 38; 47 CFR § 2.803(c), Notes 1 and 2.

No, unless the producer is itself named on the Covered List. The Commission states that the bar applies only to logic-bearing components produced by an entity identified on the list. It does not apply to components produced by companies that make UAS, UAS critical components or routers in a foreign country, unless the company is otherwise identified, for example in section 1709 of the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act.

The FCC’s FAQ on advanced robotic devices and power inverters says a company that produces them in a foreign country is not considered identified on the Covered List, which is the test the component rule applies.

A component therefore does not trigger the bar because its maker’s own routers or drones are covered by place of production. Those routers and drones still need their own way off the list, and the routes are at How does equipment come off the Covered List?

Source: FCC 26-50 ¶ 37 and n.101; 91 FR 57798; FCC Covered List FAQs on advanced robotic devices and power inverters, read September 29, 2026.

Components produced by an entity that the Covered List identifies by name as a producer of equipment. The test is whether the device would be refused had that entity produced it.

Two limits follow from the Commission’s examples. An entry that names only a service has no effect on equipment authorization. An entry limited to stated uses, such as physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, carries its limit into the component rule. A device that incorporates that entity’s component is refused until the entity has an approved compliance plan, and can then be authorized for uses outside the entry.

The Commission cannot add a company to the Covered List on its own initiative. It has said that if one of the sources authorized to make Covered List determinations makes one about communications equipment produced by the semiconductor producers identified in section 5949 of the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act, the rule would apply to devices containing their chips.

Source: 47 CFR §§ 2.903(b)(2), 1.50002; FCC 26-50 ¶¶ 17, 36.

Not by this rule. The Commission declined to prohibit software or firmware components produced by Covered List entities and limited the rule to hardware. It rejected a bar on every component those entities produce. It declined for now to reach components from any company owned or controlled by a foreign adversary regardless of Covered List status, and kept the record open on that question.

The Third Further Notice issued with the order asks whether a device that integrates software or firmware produced by a Covered List entity should be barred from authorization. Reply comments on that notice closed September 28, 2026.

Source: FCC 26-50 ¶¶ 29, 30, 35, 152; 91 FR 57798; 91 FR 51139, August 7, 2026; FCC Order DA 26-888, August 26, 2026.

Yes, from the component bar. An application filed with the Commission or a Telecommunication Certification Body before October 13, 2026 and still pending on that date is exempt from § 2.903(b)(2), whether it seeks certification or relies on the Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity.

The exemption ends if the application is amended after that date to add, substitute or change a logic-bearing hardware component. The Commission treats that amendment as a new application.

Source: FCC 26-50 ¶ 39; 91 FR 57798.

Yes. The bar on permissive changes applies to equipment that is already prohibited from authorization and to equipment that would become prohibited because of the change. The Commission names a shift in production to a Covered List entity and a change that costs the device its domestic end product status. A change of that kind cannot be made as a permissive change. It requires an application for a new grant of certification, and equipment that the change makes covered cannot obtain one.

The order gives examples. A device originally produced by one company cannot be redesigned and produced by a Covered List entity. A UAS certified while it was produced in the United States cannot be modified by moving its production to a foreign country. The Commission will not treat a device as prohibited unless the modification itself makes the equipment covered.

Check who produces a replacement part, and where, before the change is made.

Source: 47 CFR §§ 2.932(a), 2.1043(a), 2.903(a); FCC 26-50 ¶¶ 80, 81, 82; 91 FR 57798.

No, apart from what the waivers described below allow. New § 2.932(f) closes the permissive change procedures to equipment produced by any entity identified on the Covered List, whether or not the equipment itself is covered. A modification by such an entity needs a certification, and the Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity is closed to it for modifications as well.

The requirement applies only where the applicant is itself a Covered List entity. It does not apply to the entries defined by place of production, which include foreign-produced UAS, UAS critical components and routers. The limited waivers that allow software, firmware and security updates for Covered List UAS equipment and covered routers remain in effect according to their terms. What those waivers allow is at Can I change a covered product that was already authorized?

Source: 47 CFR § 2.932(f); FCC 26-50 ¶¶ 86, 87, 88; 91 FR 57798.

Listing regulated equipment on an online marketplace counts as marketing when it is combined with consignment, warehousing, inventory management, order processing, labelling, packaging, billing or fulfilment services. That holds even when a third-party seller makes the sale.

A marketplace that markets an unauthorized device is subject to enforcement on the same basis as any other person, with no willfulness or knowledge element. Carriers that only transport devices without trading in them remain outside the marketing rules.

Source: 47 CFR §§ 2.803(a)(1), 2.902; 91 FR 57798.

For a radiofrequency device subject to certification, in two steps. A marketplace that sells its own device, or that has physical access to or takes title to a third-party seller’s device, must display a valid and accurate FCC ID from March 1, 2027. A marketplace that lists a third-party device without access or title must display a valid FCC ID from June 1, 2027. It is not liable for a seller’s inaccuracy if it took reasonable steps to check the ID against the Commission’s Equipment Authorization System and required the seller to certify accuracy.

Three kinds of listing are excluded: a listing that predates the effective date, until it is amended, updated or republished; a listing by a seller that is not a high-volume third-party seller under 15 U.S.C. § 45f(f)(6); and a listing for a used device.

A change to a product description, product images, product specifications or seller information is an amendment. A change to price, search ranking, page layout, translation or currency display is not.

Source: 47 CFR § 2.803(c)(1) to (c)(3), Notes 1 and 2; 91 FR 57798.

Know who produced every logic-bearing component in each device you plan to file or change. The Commission rejected the argument that tracking component provenance is unworkable. It called hardware bills of materials common practice in supply-chain risk management, and it placed the cost of vetting the supply chain on the device maker.

Three steps follow from the rule and the order. List the logic-bearing components in the bill of materials with the producing entity for each. Compare those producers with the entities named on the Covered List. Leave the components of a pending application unchanged, because an amendment that adds, substitutes or changes one after October 13 is treated as a new application.

The adopted rule requires no bill of materials and prescribes no form for one. A hardware and software bill of materials requirement is proposed in the Third Further Notice issued with the order. How an Origin Evidence File under the Gatewell Protocol maps to that proposal is at the Protocol crosswalk.

Source: FCC 26-50 ¶¶ 32, 34, 39, 82; FCC 26-50, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ¶ 142, 91 FR 51139, August 7, 2026.

Fixed fees, staged against milestones, no hourly meters. Three published services apply.

Covered-List Exposure Diagnostic, $7,500 to $15,000, fixed. Two weeks. Covered status by product, grandfathering position and viable pathway. Half credits against a full engagement.

Origin Evidence File assembly, $15,000 to $35,000 per line. The complete documentary file under Protocol v1.0, which includes production provenance and deep-trace component origin.

Vendor-bench diligence, $15,000 to $50,000 across a portfolio, for importers, distributors and project developers.

Gatewell Group is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Filings are prepared with supervising counsel.

The full schedule and every published fee band is at Services. Other Covered List questions are answered at the Covered List FAQ.