essay on honesty is the best policy for class 3

• Growth & Development
• Play & Activities
• Life Skills
• Play & Learning
• Learning & Education
• Rhymes & Songs
• Preschool Locator

How To Write An Essay On Honesty For Kids

Key Points to Remember When Writing an Essay on ‘Honesty is the Best Policy’ for Lower Primary Classes

• 10 Lines on ‘Honesty is the Best Policy’ for Children
• Short Essay on ‘Honesty is the Best Policy’

Long Essay on ‘Honesty Is The Best Policy’

What will your child learn by writing an essay on ‘honesty is the best policy’.

Honesty is an admired virtue. Parents and teachers both work towards instilling this quality in kids early on. When kids learn to be honest from a young age, they grow up to become honest adults. Therefore, they are taught that honesty is the best policy. Children are encouraged to always tell the truth, even if they have done something wrong, like skipping homework or breaking something. It makes them learn the value of speaking the truth, following rules and taking responsibility. It also ensures they learn from their mistakes and don’t repeat them. To teach children the value of honesty in school, they are asked to write an essay on ‘Honesty is the Best Policy’. As they write on the subject of honesty, they develop a better understanding of this value, while building a strong moral character. 

‘Honesty is the Best Policy’ is a popular essay topic for classwork and exams for children of lower primary classes. Here are some key points to guide them in writing a good essay on this subject:

• Start by describing what is honesty
• Explain why it is important for people to be honest
• Write why everyone likes honest people
• Write the benefits of honesty

10 Lines on ‘Honesty is the Best Policy’ for Children 

Young kids may find it difficult to compose an essay on a given topic. Let’s make it easier for them with this simple technique. Ask them to start by jotting down simple sentences, and then connecting them into paragraphs.

• ‘Honesty is the best policy’ is a popular English proverb.
• It teaches the virtue of being sincere and truthful.
• The meaning of this phrase is that even if lying is a more convenient alternative, speaking the truth is always the better option.
• The proverb emphasises the significance of authenticity and integrity in one’s life.
• An honest person is always more courageous and self-assured than a dishonest individual.
• A dishonest individual is constantly afraid of the truth being revealed, so they can never be at ease.
• An honest person tends to have deeper and healthier relationships with those around them.
• In society, honesty is always highly regarded and respected.
• It is a reflection of a person’s strong personality and good upbringing.
• Honesty is a virtuous quality taught at home by family members and at school by teachers.

Short Essay on ‘Honesty is the Best Policy’ 

Honesty is an important virtue to teach children. However, teaching them to write an essay on the topic could be difficult. When young kids of lower primary classes are asked to write this essay, this sample will help them learn and write well on their own.

Being honest with people in one’s life is the best policy. Being truthful and sincere allows others to have complete faith in us and see our true character. It helps us win their confidence and makes us trustworthy. It also helps us develop stronger relationships with our family and friends. Dishonest people have weaker relationships because people don’t trust their words and actions. Their friends and family think they may be lying to them and are always mistrustful of them. Like a strong foundation, honesty is a trait that upholds the honest person in their own eyes and others. Honest people always are respected and trusted wherever they go. It is advantageous in their work and social life. Without any extra effort, honest people have many benefits. Even one small lie can destroy a good relationship. So always remember, being honest is the best for strong and trustful relationships.

Students of class 3 are asked to write a long essay on the topic ‘Honesty is the Best Policy’. It teaches young kids to be truthful, understand the value of honesty and imbibe it in their character. Here is a long paragraph on ‘Honesty is the Best Policy’ in English for kids:

According to the popular phrase, honesty is the best policy. Being truthful allows us to gain the trust of those in our lives or those close to us like our friends, classmates and teachers. Honesty is not simply telling the truth but also caring for and honouring people’s feelings. We should respect everyone regardless of age, position or abilities. We will never gain someone’s trust if we lie to them, and we will have difficulties in our relationships with them. We might lose their faith in us indefinitely because it is difficult to regain trust once lost. Honest people are respected in every field, whether in their workplace, school, college, family or society at large.

Dishonest people, on the other hand, are not respected or trusted anywhere. Once people know you lie, they will mistrust everything you say or do. Even in places such as schools, students and teachers tend to trust truthful students. Students, who lie face difficulties in their school lives. As they grow up and start working, they continue to face these difficulties. In society, too, honest people enjoy the trust and respect of all.

Honesty is an admired virtue in every aspect of life. Be it in one’s personal life or work life, trust is the foundation on which all relationships are built. Being sincere and truthful develops trust, and once trust is established, the relationship becomes stronger.

Everyone assumes others are just like them. So an honest person will assume others too are honest and will respect them. Likewise, a dishonest person will always doubt others and will not respect them. Other people too, in turn, will not respect or trust them. Being honest relieves you of the burden to impress others by pretending to be someone else. It helps you impress people with your sincerity. In contrast, dishonest people always put up an act and make efforts to be able to impress others. Honesty indeed earns you respect and ensures you are at peace with yourself and others, and are happy.

By writing a composition on honesty, your child will improve their English language and learn the importance of honesty as a virtue. Essay writing improves the linguistic skills of the students. They learn to form meaningful sentences, improve their grammar and vocabulary and write sequentially. Their imagination and creativity are enriched as they write an essay on honesty in English. They learn to convey their emotions and thoughts on the topic. Therefore teachers make students practice composing essays. Writing on ‘Honesty is the Best Policy’ is a great way for students of classes 1, 2, and 3 to learn about this virtue and aspire to be honest.

Through these sample essays on honesty, your child will learn to write both long and short paragraphs. They will also learn about honesty and how it makes one a better person.

Essay On ‘Health Is Wealth’ for Children Cleanliness Is Next To Godliness Essay for Kids How to Write an Essay On ‘Laughter Is the Best Medicine’ for Children

• Essays for Class 1
• Essays for Class 2
• Essays for Class 3

How Your Screen Time Directly Impacts Your Child?

13 helpful tips to get your child to listen to you, how to build a healthy relationship with food for your child, leave a reply cancel reply.

Log in to leave a comment

Most Popular

Why playing alone is recommend for kids, recent comments.

FirstCry Intelli Education is an Early Learning brand, with products and services designed by educators with decades of experience, to equip children with skills that will help them succeed in the world of tomorrow.

The FirstCry Intellikit `Learn With Stories` kits for ages 2-6 brings home classic children`s stories, as well as fun activities, specially created by our Early Learning Educators.

For children 6 years and up, explore a world of STEAM learning, while engaging in project-based play to keep growing minds busy!

Build a love for reading through engaging book sets and get the latest in brain-boosting toys, recommended by the educators at FirstCry Intellitots.

Our Comprehensive 2-year Baby Brain Development Program brings to you doctor-approved toys for your baby`s developing brain.

Our Preschool Chain offers the best in education across India, for children ages 2 and up.

©2024 All rights reserved

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Welcome to the world of Intelli!

We have some FREE Activity E-books waiting for you. Fill in your details below so we can send you tailor- made activities for you and your little one.

Parent/Guardian's Name

Child's DOB

What would you like to receive other than your Free E-book? I would like information, discounts and offers on toys, books and products I want to find a FirstCry Intellitots Preschool near me I want access to resources for my child's development and/or education

Welcome to the world of intelli!

FREE guides and worksheets coming your way on whatsapp. Subscribe Below !!

THANK YOU!!!

Here are your free guides and worksheets.

• Kids Learning
• English Essays for Kids

Honesty is the Best Policy Essay for Kids

We have come across the proverb “Honesty is the best policy” numerous times. This proverb also makes a very common topic for essay writing in primary classes. Here, we are offering honesty is the best policy essay for kids written in 10 simple lines.

Essay writing hones linguistic skills in students. It also sharpens creativity and imagination in young minds. That is why children are motivated to practice essay writing right from their formative years of learning. This honesty is the best policy paragraph in English is our attempt to offer a good example of how kids can write 10 lines essay on this topic.

Click on the link provided below to download honesty is the best policy paragraph for kids in a printable PDF format, that can be referred to anytime and anywhere, even when you are not online. Click on the linked article to get more such brilliant essays for kids on other topics that are frequently asked in the primary classes.

Download “10 Lines on Honesty is the best policy Essay for Kids” PDF For Free

Honesty is the best policy essay in english.

• “Honesty is the best policy” is a famous English proverb.
• It encourages the quality of being honest i.e. truthful and sincere.
• The meaning of honesty is the best policy is that even if one finds lying an easier option, telling the truth is the best course of action.
• The proverb puts light on the importance of genuineness and integrity in an individual’s life.
• An honest person is always more courageous and confident than a dishonest person.
• This is because the dishonest person will always be scared of the revelation of truth. Such a person can never be at peace.
• Honesty imparts peace and happiness to the individual who practices it.
• An honest person tends to make stronger and healthier relationships with the people around.
• Honesty is always respected and recognized in society. It is a reflection of one’s strong character.
• Like all other good values, one learns honesty at home through family members and in school through teachers.

We hope that the above 10 lines on honesty essay in English for kids would help your little one in understanding how to draft a simple and interesting essay on the given topic. Honesty is the best policy meaning has been explained in the essay given above.

Children should read different essay types to explore honesty is the best policy examples to develop an in-depth understanding of the topic. Children can also write the same 10 lines under the heading honesty is the best policy paragraph. At school functions too, children can participate in honesty is the best policy speech and discuss how speaking the truth helps in boosting one’s confidence and leading a fulfilling life.

Along with such exciting essays on various topics, we also have a plethora of engrossing learning resources for your little one- intriguing worksheets, brain-tickling general knowledge questions, interesting stories from famous genres, poems for children, 100% accurate NCERT Solutions, easy trivia questions, etc. on our Kids Learning section . Explore this section and find all that you need in order to assist your kid in excelling in studies.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• Trending Events /

Essay on Honesty is the Best Policy: Samples in 100, 150 and 200 Words

• Updated on  
• Oct 10, 2023

The phrase “Honesty is the best policy” is one we’ve all heard before. It’s crucial to understand that being truthful helps to cultivate a strong moral character, teaches good behaviour, instils discipline, encourages intelligent adherence to rules and regulations, and promotes punctuality. In this blog post, we’ll explore why honesty is so important in building and maintaining relationships in an essay form. 

Table of Contents

• 1 Essay on Honesty is the Best Policy (100 Words)
• 2 Essay on Honesty is the Best Policy (150 Words)
• 3 Essay on Honesty is the Best Policy (200 Words)
• 4 Related Articles:

Also Read: Essay on Rabindranath Tagore

Essay on Honesty is the Best Policy (100 Words)

Honesty is the foundation of trust and integrity. It is the best policy because it builds strong relationships, fosters credibility, and maintains one’s morals. When individuals are truthful, others rely on their words and actions, creating bonds of trust essential in personal and professional life. Honesty also develops self-respect and a clear conscience, allowing individuals to navigate life with integrity. Whereas, deceit and lies remove trust and can lead to damaging consequences. In the long run, honesty is the foundation upon which ethical, successful, and fulfilling lives are built, making it undeniably the best policy.

“Being honest builds trust with others. This helps people to rely on their words and actions.”

“Honest communication helps in building healthier and more genuine relationships.”

Essay on Honesty is the Best Policy (150 Words)

Honesty is a fundamental virtue that guides individuals to live a principled life. It is often said that “honesty is the best policy,” and this saying holds true in various aspects of our lives.

Firstly, honesty fosters trust and builds strong relationships. When people are truthful and transparent, others feel confident in their words and actions. Trust forms the foundation of successful personal and professional relationships.

Moreover, honesty promotes personal integrity. It allows individuals to maintain a clear conscience and peace of mind, as they have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. This leads to a sense of self-respect and dignity.

Additionally, honesty contributes to a just and fair society. It ensures that people are held accountable for their actions and that deceitful behaviour is discouraged. In business and governance, honesty is essential for ethical decision-making and public trust.

In conclusion, honesty is indeed the best policy. It enriches our lives by fostering trust, preserving personal integrity, and promoting fairness in society. Embracing honesty as a core value leads to a more honourable and fulfilling life.

Also Read: Essay on Yoga

“Honesty removes the stress of keeping secrets of maintaining lies.”

“Honestly helps in maintaining more personal integrity and reputation.”

Essay on Honesty is the Best Policy (200 Words)

Honesty is a timeless virtue that holds immense significance in our lives.

First and foremost, honesty fosters trust. It is often said that trust is the foundation of all healthy relationships, be it in personal friendships, family bonds, or professional collaborations. Without honesty, trust crumbles, leading to suspicion and conflict.

Furthermore, honesty promotes personal growth and self-respect. When we are truthful, we confront our mistakes and shortcomings. This self-awareness is crucial for personal development, as it allows us to learn from our errors and strive for improvement. Dishonesty, on the other hand, leads to a cycle of deceit and hinders personal growth.

In the world of business and economics, honesty is vital for a thriving society. Honest business practices lead to fair competition and consumer trust, which in turn contribute to a healthy economy. Companies that prioritize honesty tend to enjoy long-term success and customer loyalty.

In conclusion, honesty is not just a virtue; it is a guiding principle for a fulfilling and harmonious life. It strengthens relationships, fosters personal growth, and sustains thriving societies. Embracing honesty in our words and actions is a path to both individual and collective well-being. As the saying goes, “Honesty is indeed the best policy.”

Related Articles:

• Essay on Punctuality
• Essay on Mother Teresa
• Essay on Leadership
• Essay on Isaac Newton

A1. Honesty helps in developing good qualities like kindness, discipline, truthfulness and moral integrity in people. 

A2. Being honest with yourself can make life easier, less complicated, and a lot more beautiful.

A3. Honesty means “fairness and straightforwardness of conduct.”

We hope this blog provides you with all the information on honesty as the best policy and its benefits. To discover more essay-writing articles, then keep reading at Leverage Edu! 

Malvika Chawla

Malvika is a content writer cum news freak who comes with a strong background in Journalism and has worked with renowned news websites such as News 9 and The Financial Express to name a few. When not writing, she can be found bringing life to the canvasses by painting on them.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Paragraph On Honesty Is The Best Policy 100, 150, 200, 250 to 300 Words For Kids, Students And Children

February 7, 2024 by Prasanna

Paragraph On Honesty Is The Best Policy:  The phrase ‘honesty is the best policy’ is not something we have discovered recently. Instead, we are familiar with this phrase from ages. Following the advice of the phrase provides an individual with mental peace. If our actions are the result of truthfulness and honesty, then we will never have to face emotions like guilt and the consequences of wrongdoings.

You can read more  Paragraph Writing  about articles, events, people, sports, technology many more.

Paragraph On Honesty Is The Best Policy – 100 Words for Classes 1, 2, 3 Kids

One should start by discussing the meaning of honesty before discussing the entire phrase that ‘honesty is the best policy.’ The quality of being truthful and following rules like given is called being honest.

Being dishonest might save one at that instant, but it is evident to cause big trouble when the truth comes out in the long run. If one lie is told, then eventually, one has to tell another. This will keep on going involving many such lies and make the individual worried, anxious, and unhappy.

That is why the proverb ‘honesty is the best policy’ is one of the most famous and followed phrases in the world.

Paragraph On Honesty Is The Best Policy – 150 Words for Classes 4, 5 Children

Honesty is one of the best qualities of character noticed in an individual. It is the quality of being truthful by practicing speaking of the truth, being loyal, following rules and regulations. Honesty is also the foundation quality for other good attributes like discipline, kindness, moral integrity, etc.

However, the quality of honesty is now what the world has fallen short of recently. Whenever people find themselves in a vulnerable position, they seek a resort by saying a lie. The game of deceiving, greed, and dishonesty has become more common that drinkable clean water.

Since honesty is a rare quality, we can easily spot those who are brave enough, to tell the truth. The level of maturity in a person can also be determined by them being honest. An honest person is evident in succeeding in career and relationship because they present others with their genuine self, providing them little chance of complaint with their authenticity.

Paragraph On Honesty Is The Best Policy – 200 Words for Classes 6, 7, 8 Students

The quality of honesty is admirable in an individual, just like dishonesty is considered a sin in all religions. The quality of honesty in a person will shine like Sun provides us with the eternal light.

The importance of honesty is taught to kids from an early age, first by their parents and then in school. A person should earn the compliment of honesty by being dedicated and sincere towards every aspect of life.

The lack of honesty and honest people in society is evident in bringing it to its doom. The qualities like speaking the truth, following rules, punctuality, being authentic, etc. are slowly developed in a person by constant learning of ethics.

Our education system also ensures that children understand the importance of honesty by introducing them to fables like ‘the boy who cried wolf/tiger’ and ‘woodcutter and his ax’. All these stories had one common link, which is how honesty always wins over dishonesty.

The famous phrase or proverb ‘honesty is the best policy’ only reminds us that truthfulness and sincerity are the better paths to be taken by one in life. And the constant practice of honesty results in being an inculcated good habit in everyone.

Paragraph On Honesty Is The Best Policy – 250 to 300 Words for Classes 9, 10, 11, 12 And Competitive Exams Students

It is not only the proverb that implies honesty is the best option, but people and legends also don’t differ while advising the same. Take an example like William Shakespeare, who said that the quality of honesty in a person is the greatest legacy, or as Mahatma Gandhi told that the truth is the reality.

Having transparency in your thought and what you speak or present in front of others is said to be having an honest trait. One should not only be honest with others, but they should also be honest with themselves.

Honesty is the foundation step in being noble as per Winston Churchill. The essence of humanity in the world is also restored because of the presence of qualities like honesty. If the societies of the world were denied of any honesty at all, then there would only exist chaos by the loss of order.

The reason why people opt for dishonest means like lying is because of their short term gain results. But in the long term, it is honesty that proves to be beneficial and lasting. A dishonest person loses all respect in the eyes of the others, and others also lose trust in them. Therefore, the quality of honesty works as a tool for many to voice their opinions.

An honest person might have to face many difficulties and hardships in their life, but it is their moral integrity that stops them from choosing dishonesty. Rather the satisfaction of honesty and loyalty is much greater than the feeling one gets by choosing the easy way out.

All one has to do for being honest and leading a successful life is by being truthful to others and oneself, also accepting flaws and working on them to become a better person.

FAQ’s on Paragraph on Honesty is The Best Policy

Question 1. Who is considered to be an honest person?

Answer: A person who is genuine, truthful, and trustworthy is considered to be an honest person.

Question 2. Mention some words that are synonymous with honesty.

Answer: Words like sincerity, truthfulness, straightforward, genuine, candid, real, blunt, direct, straightforward, frank, etc. are similar to honesty.

Question 3. Is a truthful person the same as an honest person?

Answer: Yes. A person who tells the truth does not cheat, and is honorable is both truthful and honest.

Question 4. Define the phrase- ‘Honesty is the best policy.’

Answer: Proverb honesty is the best policy means that it is better, to tell the truth than lying.

• Picture Dictionary
• English Speech
• English Slogans
• English Letter Writing
• English Essay Writing
• English Textbook Answers
• Types of Certificates
• ICSE Solutions
• Selina ICSE Solutions
• ML Aggarwal Solutions
• HSSLive Plus One
• HSSLive Plus Two
• Kerala SSLC
• Distance Education

Essay on Honesty is the Best Policy

“Honesty is the best policy” is a timeless adage that holds immense wisdom. Honesty is more than just telling the truth; it’s about being truthful, trustworthy, and fair in all our actions and words. In this essay, we will explore the importance of honesty, its impact on our lives, and why it should be cherished as a fundamental virtue.

The Essence of Honesty

Honesty is the foundation of trust and integrity. It means being truthful and sincere, even when no one is watching. It’s about doing what is right, not just what is easy or convenient. Honesty builds character and sets the stage for positive interactions with others.

Honesty in Daily Life

In our daily lives, honesty plays a crucial role. When we are honest, we earn the respect and trust of our family, friends, and peers. People rely on us because they know we can be trusted to do what we say we will do.

Trustworthiness in Relationships

Trust is an essential component of healthy relationships. Whether it’s with our parents, teachers, or friends, being honest fosters trust. When trust is present, relationships are stronger, and conflicts are easier to resolve.

Academic Integrity

In schools, honesty is highly valued. Academic integrity means doing one’s own work, giving proper credit to others, and refraining from cheating or plagiarism. Honesty in education leads to personal growth and ethical behavior.

Honesty in the Workplace

It is equally important in the workplace. Employers value employees who are honest in their actions and communications. It promotes a positive work environment and fosters professional growth.

The Consequences of Dishonesty

Conversely, dishonesty can have serious consequences. Lying, cheating, and stealing damage relationships, reputations, and opportunities. People who are known for dishonesty often find it difficult to rebuild trust.

The Ripple Effect of Honesty

Honesty has a positive ripple effect. When we choose honesty, we inspire others to do the same. This creates a culture of integrity that benefits everyone.

Role Models of Honesty

Throughout history, many role models have exemplified honesty. Figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and Nelson Mandela are celebrated for their unwavering commitment to truth and justice.

Conclusion of Essay on Honesty is the Best Policy

In conclusion, “Honesty is the best policy” is a timeless wisdom that reminds us of the value of truthfulness and integrity. Honesty builds trust, fosters positive relationships, and sets the stage for personal and professional success. It is a virtue that should be cherished and cultivated from an early age. By choosing honesty in our actions and words, we not only strengthen our character but also contribute to a more trustworthy and ethical society. In a world where trust is invaluable, honesty remains the best policy for leading a fulfilling and meaningful life.

Also Check: The Essay on Essay: All you need to know

Essay on Honesty is the best policy for Students in 1000 Words

In this article, you will read an Essay on Honesty is the best policy for Students and Childrens in 1000 Words. Are you searching – What is the meaning of ‘Honesty is the best policy’?

Table of Contents

Introduction (Essay on Honesty is the best policy)

What is honesty.

Honesty is the best policy as the reason is the foundation of a well-functioning relationship. Further, it nourishes many lives in several ways. Here, trust is the basis of any relationship that is received honestly.

Integrity leads a person to a promising path that gives real happiness. A person is honest when he follows honesty in various aspects, such as honesty in speaking, fairness in justice, honesty in behavior, and honesty in all the activities we do in our everyday lives. Honesty makes a person free from all troubles and fearlessness.

Why is honesty the best policy?

Lying can lead us into hardships that one cannot bear, so we are honest in our lives, and some people who do not have the courage, to tell the truth even to their loved ones, usually lie and be dishonest. The reasons are bad situations. On the other hand, understanding the truthfulness helps to strengthen our character and makes us stronger.

History of honesty

Honesty for a successful life.

The honest people are always well understood in their society and family and are the most delightful people worldwide. However, a dishonest man will still face the difficulty and bad words of the people of the community. Here, good character is the most valuable asset of an honest person more than other precious things like gold or silver.

The definition of ‘honesty is the best policy’

10 lines on honesty is the best policy.

The following points describe the benefits of an honest lifestyle.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply, copyright protection, important links.

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Honesty — Honesty is the Best Policy: The Virtue of Truthfulness

Honesty is The Best Policy: The Virtue of Truthfulness

• Categories: Honesty

About this sample

Words: 561 |

Published: Sep 1, 2023

Words: 561 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

The pillar of personal integrity, fostering genuine relationships, contributing to a just society, challenges and the power of honesty.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 817 words

1 pages / 392 words

1 pages / 602 words

5 pages / 2479 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Honesty

Honesty, a timeless and revered virtue, holds immense significance in our personal lives, relationships, and society as a whole. It is a foundational pillar upon which trust is built, the cornerstone of integrity, and a profound [...]

In conclusion, honesty is indeed the best policy in most situations. It is a moral value that promotes trust, transparency, and ethical behavior. Honesty has practical benefits, such as building strong relationships and creating [...]

Integrity is the cornerstone of ethical behavior, and at the heart of integrity lies the commitment to be honest and trustworthy. This essay explores the profound significance of these virtues in personal and professional [...]

Associations fill or influence positions since they to have issues they have to make sense of. For instance, unfit advancing. In this way, prepare for a gathering by recognizing the issues demonstrated at in the action [...]

In this world full of lies telling the truth will be that way to make things right. Why do people keep telling lies? What is wrong with saying the truth? Being in this world is challenging. Almost everything that surrounded us [...]

Whether it be getting a cold or losing a loved one, suffering is something everyone will experience. Ironically, suffering is one of the main reasons we have happiness; although we suffer, eventually our pain will be resolved. [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay On Honesty Is the Best Policy

• Post category: Essay
• Reading time: 10 mins read

Set 1: Essay On Honesty Is the Best Policy

Honesty is a rare commodity in the world today. Most people prefer the easy way. out which sometimes deviates from the path of honesty, for to be completely honest means facing hardships and obstacles.

Nothing succeeds like success, and many people believe it is the “end result’ that matters-not the means. Therefore, even if you acquire success, money, position and respect by being just a little out of line-it doesn’t really matter much.

But remember-anything acquired by incorrect and dishonest’ means will never last-what will sustain is honesty, and work done honestly.

In the world of today, honesty is regarded as a hindrance in achieving success rapidly. It may appear that the ‘smooth, worker’ who knows exactly how to manipulate gets ahead, while the honest not so cunning person gets left way behind-but it’s like the old tale of the tortoise and the rabbit. Slow and steady and honestywins the race.

In the end, it’s not what others judge you by that counts- it’s what you judge yourself as. It’s how you feel about your actions and deeds-if you are one with them and feel you have achieved your goal HONESTLY-that’s all that matters.

Set 2: Essay On Honesty Is the Best Policy

To be honest one has to be true in word and deed. An honest person tells the truth. He is just in what he thinks. He will never think of cheating anybody else. He always keeps the promises he makes.

We see a lot of dishonesty around us. We see people who are dishonest quite happy after doing dishonest acts such as telling lies, cheating, stealing and being unjust. But as soon as their acts are miserable.

discovered they get punished and become In school also we see the same thing. When a boy steals his friend’s new watch he is happy. But as soon as the teacher finds out and punishes him, and he cries and becomes very sad. A friend of mine once got zero out of ten in a spelling test. He quietly put a one before the zero. The teacher saw it the next day and called for his parents.

Everybody was very angry with him for his dishonesty. He was very sorry for cheating. Being dishonest may make a person happy for a short while. But he is afraid inside. He is afraid of being caught. Truth never stays hidden for long. It comes out one way or another and dishonesty gets punished.

An honest person has nothing to fear. He never tells lies. He is respected and loved by all. Dishonesty brings it with unhappiness and loneliness. Honesty is therefore the best policy and we should all be honest and be happy always.

Set 3: Essay On Honesty Is the Best Policy

Generally, people say that honesty is the best policy. It means if we want to succeed in life we should be honest and straightforward. Nothing succeeds like honesty in life. It is possible that dishonesty may be successful for some time, but in the long run honesty is sure to succeed.

This can be seen if we consider the cases of students and businessmen. The student who tries to copy in the examination hall may get some more marks than he would have otherwise got. But he learns a lesson to neglect honest work and in the long run, he is sure to suffer the consequences of dishonesty, as he will find himself below the standard.

Let us examine the case of a student who tries to use foul means in the examination hall and is caught red handed by the invigilator. The least punishment he gets is that the paper is snatched from him and he is asked to promise not to copy again. When he reaches home, he gets rebuke from his father and mother. In the company of his friends, he is put to shame. When he goes to his class for his daily lessons, he is hated by the teacher and the principal. For a single act of dishonest deed, he finds the whole of the little world against him. He comes to repentance. But it is too late.

If a businessman is found to be dishonest even in a single transaction, people try to avoid him. His sales goes down. People refuse to believe him even when his prices are the least. He loses his customers and goodwill. There are only two courses open to him, either to wind up the business or to be honest.

The effect of dishonesty is much the same in the case of clerks, teachers, government servants and others. It is possible that a man may become rich by adopting dishonest means. But he generally squanders the money. He again adopts dishonest means to earn more.. In this way, his whole life become a vicious circle.

It is necessary for us to be honest if we want to succeed in life. Dishonesty leads to failure. A dishonest person is bound to fall in the long run. Without hard work and honesty none has succeeded in the world so far.

Set 4: Essay On Honesty Is the Best Policy

Honesty is a virtue and all religions preach honesty. It is truly the best policy. Honesty is the foundation of any trustworthy and wellworking relationship. Whether it is with parents, relatives, friends or anyone else, being honest is very important. No relationship can be successful without trust, which is gained by remaining honest.

It is believed that we should always tell the truth because by speaking truth we do not have to remember what we said. Honesty is the best policy because no matter how good we are at telling lies, the truth will always come out. At some point of time, we might find ourselve in a situation that requires us to tell lies to avoid trouble. For some people, being honest is not that easy. Such people might find themselves lying almost every day.

Honest people are always brave. They are respected and trusted by all. This is because they are known for their quality to stand by the truth. Without honesty, the world would be a bad and sad place to live in. People who continuously bluff do not respect others. They not only lose their friends but also their reputation since no one likes associating with dishonest people. One must always speak truth. In this way, we will lead a good, respectable and moral life. Some of the dishonest acts in which people willingly involve are cheating, corruption, robbing, etc. If all of us can stay away from such acts, the world would be a better place where all will live in harmony and trust with each other.

Honesty is an important quality that we all should aim to have. It helps to guide us in the right direction in life. It helps us to avoid unlawful and immoral activities. An honest person is of good character and has a clear conscience. He lives a satisfied and happy life. The character of such a person is dignified and graceful. Being dishonest not only makes us look bad to other people but also affects our self-confidence. People should understand that by lying, we may achieve what we want but our actions will always disturb us.

An honest person always obeys the laws and thus, he is free from serious troubles. It is advisable in living an honest life. We must stand up for what is right and never accept anything less and unfair. We must always keep in mind that we are solely liable for our actions and words. By being honest, everything will turn out well for us. We will realize that truly, ‘Honesty is the Best Policy’.

• Essay On Health is better than wealth
• Essay On Example is better than precept
• Essay On Where There is a will ,There ia s way
• Essay On Slow and Steady Wins the Race
• Essay On Rome was not Built in a Day
• Essay On Mock not a Cobbler his Black Thumbs
• Essay On Natural Calamities Or Floods and Famines
• Essay On Floods
• Essay On Scenes During a Strike
• Essay On Scenes on the Bank of a River

Please Share This Share this content

• Opens in a new window

You Might Also Like

Essay on the autobiography of a gold necklace.

Essay On Holi

Essay on the india of my dreams, essay on education of woman and her position.

Essay On Radio

Essay on a scene at a water tap, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Essay on Honesty Is the Best Policy

Students are often asked to write an essay on Honesty Is the Best Policy in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Honesty Is the Best Policy

Understanding honesty.

Honesty means telling the truth, being open, and not hiding facts. It’s a key aspect of all successful relationships, whether between family members, friends, or classmates.

Why Honesty Is the Best Policy?

Honesty is the best policy because it builds trust. When we are honest, people believe in us. They know they can count on us.

Benefits of Being Honest

Being honest helps us stay peaceful. It keeps our mind clear from guilt. It also helps us gain respect from others.

In the end, honesty always wins. So, always be honest, it’s the best policy.

250 Words Essay on Honesty Is the Best Policy

Introduction.

Honesty is a virtue that has been valued and preached by moralists and religious institutions across the globe. The timeless adage, “Honesty is the best policy,” encapsulates the profound truth that sincerity and truthfulness are key to a successful and fulfilling life.

The Power of Honesty

Honesty is more than just avoiding lies; it represents integrity, straightforwardness, and trustworthiness. It underpins all human interactions, be it personal or professional. Honesty fosters trust and respect among individuals, thus strengthening relationships and promoting cooperation. In the absence of honesty, societies would crumble under the weight of suspicion and deceit.

Honesty in Personal Life

In personal life, honesty helps in maintaining authentic relationships. It allows individuals to be true to themselves and others, thereby promoting self-esteem and mental well-being. Dishonesty, on the other hand, often leads to stress, guilt, and broken relationships.

Honesty in Professional Life

In the professional sphere, honesty is equally crucial. It enhances one’s reputation, fosters trust among colleagues, and is key to long-term success. Businesses thrive on honesty, as it builds customer trust and loyalty, and promotes a positive work culture.

In conclusion, honesty is not just a moral obligation, but a necessity for a harmonious society. It is the cornerstone of all virtues and the foundation upon which trust and respect are built. Hence, it is indeed the best policy. As we navigate through life, let us remember that the path of honesty may not always be easy, but it is always rewarding.

500 Words Essay on Honesty Is the Best Policy

Honesty is a virtue that has been valued across cultures and time, embodying the principles of truthfulness and integrity. The maxim, “Honesty is the best policy,” encapsulates the profound significance that honesty holds in our lives. This essay explores the depth and breadth of this timeless adage, delving into its implications for personal growth, social relationships, and societal progress.

The Personal Sphere: Honesty as Self-Realization

At an individual level, honesty is a cornerstone of character development and self-realization. It promotes authenticity, allowing one to stay true to their own beliefs, values, and aspirations. When we are honest, we confront our weaknesses and acknowledge our strengths, fostering self-awareness and personal growth. It also instills a sense of responsibility, as honesty often requires courage to face the truth and accept its consequences.

The Social Sphere: Honesty as a Pillar of Trust

In the realm of social relationships, honesty is the bedrock of trust and mutual respect. It fosters open communication, reduces misunderstanding, and strengthens bonds. Honesty, by promoting transparency, ensures accountability and fairness, thereby creating a climate of trust. This trust is critical in all relationships, be it familial, friendly, or professional, as it forms the basis for cooperation and mutual support.

The Societal Sphere: Honesty as a Catalyst for Progress

At a societal level, honesty plays a pivotal role in fostering social harmony and progress. An honest society is one where the rule of law is respected, justice is upheld, and the rights of individuals are protected. Honesty in public life, particularly among leaders, promotes integrity and accountability, deterring corruption and promoting the efficient use of resources. This, in turn, fosters public trust in institutions, encouraging citizen participation and contributing to societal progress.

Challenges and the Way Forward

Education plays a significant role in promoting honesty. By inculcating values of truthfulness and integrity from an early age, we can foster a culture of honesty. Furthermore, creating environments that reward honesty and discourage dishonesty, both at an institutional and societal level, can encourage individuals to follow the path of truth.

In conclusion, “Honesty is the best policy” is not just an adage, but a guiding principle that can lead to personal growth, enrich social relationships, and foster societal progress. While the path of honesty may be challenging, the rewards it yields are invaluable. As we navigate our way through the complexities of life, let us remember that the beacon of honesty can guide us towards a more fulfilling and meaningful existence.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

One Comment

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Essay on Honesty for Students and Children

 500+ words essay on honesty.

Honesty implies being truthful. Honesty means to develop a practice of speaking truth throughout life. A person who practices Honesty in his/her life, possess strong moral character. An Honest person shows good behavior, always follows rules and regulations, maintain discipline, speak the truth, and is punctual. An honest person is trustworthy as he always tends to speak the truth.

Honesty is the Best Policy

A major component for developing moral character is Honesty. Honesty helps in developing good attributes like kindness, discipline, truthfulness, moral integrity and more. Lying, cheating, lack of trust, steal, greed and other immoral attributes have no part in Honesty. Honest people are sincere, trustworthy and loyal, throughout their life. Honesty is valuable and it is the habit of utmost importance. There are famous quotes, said by a great personality like “Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom”. It holds good due to its ability to build, shape and motivate integral values in one’s life.

Benefits of Honesty

Honesty is always admirable in the family, civil society, friends and across the globe. A person with honesty is respected by all. For one to build the character of Honesty entirely depends on his/her family values and ethics and his/her surrounding environment. Parents showing honest behavior and character in front of their children create an impact on the children and we say “Honesty lies in their genes”. Honesty can also be developed practically which requires proper guidance, encouragement, patience, and dedication.

An honest person is always known for his/her honesty just like a sun is known for its eternal light and unlimited energy. It is a quality which helps a person to succeed in life and get much respect. It gives identification to the moral character of a person. Dishonest people may easily get trust and respect from other people. However, they lose that forever whenever they get caught.

Being dishonest is a sin in all the religions, however, people practice it for their short time benefits and selfishness. They never become morally strong and their life becomes miserable. An honest person moves freely in society and spread his/her fragrance in all directions. Being honest is never mean to bear the bad habits of others or bear ill-treated activities. Everyone has rights to reveal and take action against what is going wrong with him.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Importance of Honesty in Life

Honesty plays an important role in everyone’s life and it is a character which is visible with open eyes like an open book. Having considered as an Honest person, by society is one of the best compliment one can dream of in his/her entire life. It is the real character a person earns in life by being sincere and dedicated towards it. Lack of honesty in society is doom. It is due to the lack of proper interpersonal relationship between parents-children and students-teachers. Honesty is a practice which is built slowly and patiently, firstly at home and then school. Hence home and school are the best places for a child to develop Honesty since his/her growing times.

Home and school are the places where a child learns moral ethics. Thus, the education system should ensure to include some essential habits and practices to keep a child close to morality. Children must be instructed right from the beginning and their childhood to practice honesty. Youths of any country are the future of that country so they should give better opportunities to develop moral character so that they can lead their country in a better way.

For all human problems, Honesty is the ultimate solution. Corruption and various problems are everywhere in society. It is because of the decreasing number of honest people. In today’s fast and competitive world, we have forgotten about moral and integral ethics. It is very important and necessary for us to rethink and remodel, that we bring the honesty back in society so that everything goes in a natural manner.

Moral ethics of a person is known through Honesty. In a society, if all the people seriously practice getting honest, then society will become an ideal society and free of all the corruptions and evils. There will be huge changes in the day-to-day life of everyone. It can happen very easily if all the parents and teachers understand their responsibilities towards the nation and teach their children and students about moral ethics.

People should realize the value of honesty in order to manage social and economic balance. Honesty is an essential requirement in modern time. It is one of the best habits which encourages an individual and make capable enough to solve and handle any difficult situation in his/her life. Honesty acts as a catalyst in strengthening our will power to face and fight any odds in life.

FAQs on  Essay on Honesty

Q.1. What are the basic principles that were followed by Gandhiji?

Ans: The six principles followed by Gandhiji were Truth, Non-Violence, Simplicity, Faith, Selflessness, and Respect for an Individual.

Q.2. Who gave the proverb, “Honesty is the Best Policy”? Ans: Benjamin Franklin one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, gave the proverb, “Honesty is the Best Policy”.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Essay on Why Honesty is the Best Policy

The proverb ‘Honesty is the best policy’ said by Benjamin Franklin is one of the oldest proverbs that has been in relevance for ages. It is the policy of being truthful and sincere in life that makes us successful in our life. Most often we are provided to write on these topics in different competitive exams and schools.

Short and Long Essay on Why Honesty is the Best Policy in English

The short and long essay on this topic will enlighten you with details on this topic. This will give an idea to the students and readers about writing an essay on this topic.

10 Lines Essay on Why Honesty is the Best Policy (100 – 120 Words)

1) Honesty is the best policy as it always pays back.

2) Honest people are respected everywhere in society.

3) Honesty helps us to win any challenge or overcome any problem.

4) Honesty is a good habit that maintains our good reputation.

5) Honesty boosts our self-confidence and makes us strong.

6) Honesty and trust are the pillars of a healthy relationship.

7) Honesty is helpful in attaining success in every field.

8) Honesty helps us to live a peaceful and satisfactory life.

9) Honesty reflects our good character.

10) Honesty is the key to long-term happiness.

Short Essay (250 words)

Introduction

Honesty is always regarded as the best policy. Children from a very young age are taught by their parents and teachers to be honest in their life. Honesty is a quality that stops people from lying or cheating. Honest people are never afraid of others and live a peaceful and happy life.

Honesty always wins against lies

The path of honesty is difficult to be followed but is always right. People often tend to speak lies to save themselves from any kind of problematic situation. This act of speaking lies can save us at that very moment but is never the right path. A lie always has a weak base and is built on a false structure whereas truth has a strong base. The truth always wins in the battle against lies. Lies can never prevent the truth from winning. Truth is powerful and therefore lie can never change the reality of truth.

Honesty inculcates valuable qualities in us

Honesty helps in building our character by inculcating some valuable attributes in us. It requires a lot of courage to speak the truth in every situation of life. Thus it can be stated that honesty makes us brave and courageous. Honest people can be easily trusted by others because of their loyalty. They are sincere in their actions. Honesty helps in building good relationships with others. It is because honest people speak the truth and therefore they are trusted by others. Honest people do not fear anything in their life. They speak the truth and hence do not fear being caught like the people who speak lies. The qualities that develop in us by being honest to help us in becoming responsible citizens along with the strong moral character.

Honesty is only the way to get rid of corruption prevalent in society. The increase in the number of honest people will result in the progress of the nation. Honest people are loved and respected by everyone in society.

Why Honesty is the Best Policy Essay – Long Essay (1050 Words)

Honesty is the ornament of our character. It is a saying that if wealth is lost nothing is lost if health is lost something is lost but if the character is lost everything is lost. As the ornaments enhance the beauty of our body in the same way Honesty is a quality that enhances the beauty of character. It is regarded as one of the most essential qualities that every one of us should have.

What is Honesty?

Honesty is the virtue of saying the truth always in every situation of life. The meaning of honesty is not only bounded to the speaking of truth but also involves caring, responsibility, and respecting the feeling of others. It makes a person to be disciplined, punctual, well behaved and follow the rules and regulations in their life. Being honest in every situation of life is most difficult but it never leads to any worse situation. Honesty is the basis of success in our life. Honesty is something that is not attained at an instant but comes into our habit slowly and gradually after practicing. It gives us inner satisfaction after we speak the truth every time in our life.

Why Honesty is the Best Policy?

We are taught by our parents and later in schools to be honest in every situations of life since our childhood. In schools we are taught about the concept and importance of honesty in life by several stories and poems. Many times we observe practical examples of practicing honesty in real life and thus understand the good effects of practicing honesty in life.

• Makes us Successful – Honesty is the foundation of being successful in our life. It is a great quality that one posses in self. If we are honest in our life we will lead a disciplined life and live our life by following proper rules and regulations. To become successful one should have a target in life and should focus and work hard for achieving that. Honesty helps us in developing all these points required for getting successful in our life. Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, etc. are the great examples of successful personalities as they always followed the path of truth.
• Helps in Building Good Relationship – Trust is the foundation for every kind of relationship. No relationship is possible without trust. Developing trust requires being honest in all the situations of life. The people who believe in us expect truth from us. Our truthful nature gives them a reason to believe in us but lies can only hurt people and finish the relationship. We can never keep their trust alive by speaking lies. It may happen that lies can help in coming out of a difficult situation but can never save you for long. We can be neglected because of our truth for some time but after the other person analyzes the whole thing will appreciate us for being honest.
• Helps in Gaining Trust – Truth makes a person become trustworthy in society, family and friends. People can easily trust and rely on the honest person. Honesty is the policy that helps people to trust and respect us. Trust helps in building good relations with friends, family, and people in society. One lie breaks all the trust and is a precursor to hundred lies forward. The people can never develop trust in that person and thus he/she has to suffer from this during their life. Trust helps in attaining greater heights in the carrier, businesses, studies, etc.
• Makes us Brave and Confident – Honesty is the quality that enlightens us with great inner power. It makes us brave and confident in our life. Mahatma Gandhi considered truth as the most powerful weapon in life. He said that we should never fear anyone if we are speaking the truth. Speaking truth leaves no guilt in us and helps us bravely delivering our thoughts and opinions in front of others.
• Helps in Attaining Peace of Body and Mind – We get the peace of mind and great satisfaction after speaking the truth and never opting for speaking a lie. After speaking a lie we are disturbed from inside and are in the guilt of that forever. Secondly, when we speak a lie we always have a fear of getting our lies revealed. Truth helps in getting out of this fear and helps people in remaining true to themselves. It helps in believing in our self-potential and developing self-respect in us.

Is Honesty an Innate or Acquired Virtue?

Honesty is a great quality that comes in us after the act of practicing it regularly in life. It is not granted to us by birth. If this quality would be granted to us by birth no one in this world would attempt for speaking lies and doing wrong activities. Parents teach children to speak the truth from their childhood. We even get punished for speaking lies. The punishment is given to us so that we may learn from our mistakes and never repeat them again.

The power of truth can be best determined well by the life of our Father of the Nation i.e. Mahatma Gandhi. He considered truth as a most essential quality in human beings. Gandhiji was successful in making our nation free from British Rule just because he was a follower of Truth and Non-Violence. The quality of being truthful is acquired slowly and gradually by us. It totally depends upon us that how much we are ready to inculcate this quality in us and accept this. In totality, it can be stated that we need to develop this virtue in us as it makes us shine in every aspect of our life. Honesty provides us love and respect from our family, friends, and people in society thereby can be stated as the best policy.

Honest people never choose to speak lie in any situation of life. It is because of that truth they get a lot of love and respect from the people around them. They can easily be trusted by others and therefore are benefitted from life-long friendships in their life. The quality of honesty is most valued by the people and speaking lies is the cause of worse situations in life. Being honest also promotes a corruption-free environment and the progress of the society and nation.

FAQs: Frequently Asked Questions

Ans . It is a virtue of being truthful with ourselves and others in our life.

Ans . This sentence is a universal truth.

Ans . Lying sometimes for good intentions excluding selfish motives is ok sometimes.

Ans . These words were said by William Shakespeare.

Ans . It is because truth is always bitter and it is not easy to digest.

Related information:

Essay on Mahatma Gandhi

Related Posts

Essay on digital india, cashless india essay, essay on child is father of the man, essay on causes, effects and prevention of corona virus, essay on dr. sarvepalli radhakrishnan, durga puja essay, essay on summer vacation, essay on my plans for summer vacation, essay on holiday.

Essay on Honesty is the Best Policy for Children & Students

Table of Contents

Essay on Honesty is the Best Policy: Honesty is the best policy is a proverb that refers to the importance and value of honesty in our life and how it rewards people who follow it.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Long and Short Essay on Honesty is the Best Policy in English

Honesty is the best policy is very famous proverb however most effective to be followed in everyone’s life. Students are generally get this topic to write something in their school in the exams or any competition like essay writing competition, etc. We have provided some simple and easy paragraph and essay on honesty is the best policy in order to help students. So dear students, you can select any honesty is the best policy essay according to the need and interest.

Honesty is the Best Policy Essay 1 (100 words)

Honesty is the best policy means being honest and true all through the life even in bad situations is considered as honesty is the best policy. According to the saying of honesty is the best policy, one should be loyal and tell the truth always in his/her life while answering to any question or dilemma to anyone. Being honest, loyal and true in the life provides mental peace to the person. An honest person becomes always happy and peaceful because he/she does not have to live with the guilt. Being honest with everyone in our life help us to get mind peace because we do not have to remember the lie which we have told to people in order to save us.

Honesty is the Best Policy Essay 2 (150 words)

Honesty is the best policy means being honest with people in the life. Being honest help others to always trust on us and show our real character to them which is enough to let them know that we always tell the truth. Being trustworthy helps us to build a strong relationship by assuring others about our trustworthy nature. On the other hand, people who are dishonest never get second chance once they tell lie to people. It happens because people think that they will always be cheated in future by the dishonest person through lots of white lies.

Honesty is like a good weapon in the life which benefits us through many advantages and it can be developed naturally without any cost. Honesty gives us everything expected in the life whereas a single lie may ruin our life by ruining relationships. Being a lie person may lose our all privileges of being trustworthy in the hearth of our family members, friends, and other close ones. So following the saying of honesty is the best policy in the life is good.

Honesty is the Best Policy Essay 3 (200 words)

Honesty is the best policy is a famous saying said by the Benjamin Franklin. Honesty is considered as the best tool of success in the life and a famous person said it as a backbone of the successful relationship which has capability to form a well developed society. Without being honest in the life, it becomes very tough to make real and trustworthy friendship or love bond with anyone. People who are generally used of telling truth can be able to build better relationships and thus better world. Some people who do not have dare of telling truth to their dear ones, generally tell lie and face bad situations of being dishonest.

On the other hand, saying truth helps in strengthening our character and makes us strong. So, being honest (especially with family, friends and other loved ones) helps us a lot in many ways all through the life. Honesty is the most effective tool of protecting the relationships.

Telling lies just to save the situation can make the condition more worse. Saying truth always helps us to strengthen the character as well as bring confidence within us. There are many bad and good situations in the life and I think almost all of us have been felt that telling truth to our dear ones gives us relief and happiness. So, according to this saying, being honest is really being a good human being in the life.

Honesty is the Best Policy Essay 4 (250 words)

Benjamin Franklin had truly said the saying of honesty is the best policy. Honesty is considered as the backbone of a successful and well-working relationship. Being honest is very important in the relationship because no relationship can be successful without trust. Being completely honest in the life is somewhat tough but it goes long way however being dishonest is easy but covers very small and painful path. Being a truthful person in the family and society is like being awarded all through the life by the dear ones as well as nature. Honesty is the tool of living a prestigious life gifted by the God to the humanity. Honesty gives us power to tackle any bad circumstances in the life as people around us trust us and be with us. May be telling white lies give good feeling in the starting however it may badly harm at the end.

It has been proved from several years that the saying ‘honesty is the best policy’ has helped great people in building empires by winning the trust of its citizens. History tells us that telling lie never become successful and makes the circumstances worse. Some people do not choose the way of truth because of many reasons or they do not have dare to live with honesty. However some hard times of the life make them realize the importance of honesty. Telling lie may hold us in big problems which we cannot bear, so we should be honest and trustworthy in our life.

Honesty is the Best Policy Essay 5 (300 words)

According to the most famous saying of honesty is the best policy, being honest in the life lead towards success. Being honest help us to be trusted by the people in our surroundings or closer to us. Honesty is not only means to tell the truth however it means to care and honour the feeling of the associated people in our life. We should respect everyone without caring their status and talents. If we tell lie to them, we can never win their trust and thus get difficulty in that particular work or project. We can lose faith in them forever because once trust goes, come back hardly. Honest people are always in demand for doing relationship, business or other work. Several bad or good experiences in the life help people to learn more about how to be honest in their dealings with fellowman.

Being honest shows the good and clean character of the person as honesty helps to develop quality property in the behavior. Honesty changes the person from outside as well as inside without giving any harm and keeps the mind very peaceful. A peaceful mind gives satisfaction to the person by making a nice balance among body, mind and spirit. Honest people always live in the heart of people and we can say that in the heart of God. People who are honest always respected in their family and society and become the happiest people in the world. However, a dishonest person always faces difficulty and bad words of the people in society. Honesty and good character are the more valuable property of the honest person than the precious things like silver or gold.

Honesty is the important tool of living a successful life, it never make anyone to feel guilty in the life of doing anything bad with anyone. However, it brings confidence and feeling of well being and thus a peaceful and successful life.

Honesty is the Best Policy Essay 6 (400 words)

Being honest is very important in the life as it solves many problems and lead towards the success and peace. Honesty is the property which gives lots of trust and respect in the life of honest people. Honesty is the best policy is a most famous proverb said by the great person named Benjamin Franklin. An honest life with simplicity is the life excluding all the nonessential which marks oneness in the family and society if followed by everyone. Honesty is the good property help to live peaceful life and get success with kind respect. Being honest helps us to focus on the most important things in the life to us.

However, without developing the habit of honesty, we cannot achieve simplicity and other goodness in the life. We can say that, honesty can be without simplicity but simplicity cannot be without honesty. Without honesty, we live in the two world, means a true one and other one which we have created as an alternate. However, the person following the saying of honesty is the best policy in all the aspects of life (personal, business, job, and other relationships) generally live the same life. On one hand, where honesty lead us towards simplicity; dishonesty lead us towards duplicity.

Below are some points describing the benefits of an honest lifestyle:

• Honesty in the life is the way to great intimacy means it brings our friends closer to us as true friends love our real trueness, not the one which we have created artificially.
• It helps us to make good, loyal and high quality friends in the life because honesty always attracts honesty.
• It helps us to be trustworthy and get lots of respect in the life because honest people are really trusted by others.
• It brings strongness and confidence and helps us to get prevented from being underestimated by others or yourself.
• It has been noticed that an honest person easily develops feeling of wellness and hardly develops cold, fatigue, frustration, depression, anxiety and other mental problems.
• Honest people live comfortable life with lots of relief however a dishonest.
• It is the important tool of peaceful life gives lots of incredible benefits and gets us out of the trouble.
• In the early stages, honesty takes many efforts to get develop however later it become very easier.

A person with good character, ethics, and morality in the life easily develops honesty because a good character person has nothing to hide to anyone thus can be honest easily. Honesty gives us self encouragement without bad feeling.

Related Information:

Essay on Honesty

Paragraph on Honesty

Paragraph on Honesty is the Best Policy

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

Please select class

• CBSE Class 10th
• CBSE Class 12th
• UP Board 10th
• UP Board 12th
• Bihar Board 10th
• Bihar Board 12th

Top Schools

• Top Schools in India
• Top Schools in Delhi
• Top Schools in Mumbai
• Top Schools in Chennai
• Top Schools in Hyderabad
• Top Schools in Kolkata
• Top Schools in Pune
• Top Schools in Bangalore

Products & Resources

• JEE Main Knockout April
• Free Sample Papers
• Free Ebooks
• NCERT Notes
• NCERT Syllabus
• NCERT Books
• RD Sharma Solutions
• Navodaya Vidyalaya Admission 2024-25
• NCERT Solutions
• NCERT Solutions for Class 12
• NCERT Solutions for Class 11
• NCERT solutions for Class 10
• NCERT solutions for Class 9
• NCERT solutions for Class 8
• NCERT Solutions for Class 7
• JEE Main Exam
• JEE Advanced Exam
• BITSAT Exam
• View All Engineering Exams
• Colleges Accepting B.Tech Applications
• Top Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Engineering Colleges Accepting JEE Main
• Top IITs in India
• Top NITs in India
• Top IIITs in India
• JEE Main College Predictor
• JEE Main Rank Predictor
• MHT CET College Predictor
• AP EAMCET College Predictor
• GATE College Predictor
• KCET College Predictor
• JEE Advanced College Predictor
• View All College Predictors
• JEE Advanced Cutoff
• JEE Main Cutoff
• GATE Registration 2025
• JEE Main Syllabus 2025
• Download E-Books and Sample Papers
• Compare Colleges
• B.Tech College Applications
• JEE Main Question Papers
• MAH MBA CET Exam
• View All Management Exams

Colleges & Courses

• MBA College Admissions
• MBA Colleges in India
• Top IIMs Colleges in India
• Top Online MBA Colleges in India
• MBA Colleges Accepting XAT Score
• BBA Colleges in India
• XAT College Predictor 2025
• SNAP College Predictor
• NMAT College Predictor
• MAT College Predictor 2024
• CMAT College Predictor 2024
• CAT Percentile Predictor 2024
• CAT 2024 College Predictor
• Top MBA Entrance Exams 2024
• AP ICET Counselling 2024
• GD Topics for MBA
• CAT Exam Date 2024
• Download Helpful Ebooks
• List of Popular Branches
• QnA - Get answers to your doubts
• IIM Fees Structure
• AIIMS Nursing
• Top Medical Colleges in India
• Top Medical Colleges in India accepting NEET Score
• Medical Colleges accepting NEET
• List of Medical Colleges in India
• List of AIIMS Colleges In India
• Medical Colleges in Maharashtra
• Medical Colleges in India Accepting NEET PG
• NEET College Predictor
• NEET PG College Predictor
• NEET MDS College Predictor
• NEET Rank Predictor
• DNB PDCET College Predictor
• NEET Result 2024
• NEET Asnwer Key 2024
• NEET Cut off
• NEET Online Preparation
• Download Helpful E-books
• Colleges Accepting Admissions
• Top Law Colleges in India
• Law College Accepting CLAT Score
• List of Law Colleges in India
• Top Law Colleges in Delhi
• Top NLUs Colleges in India
• Top Law Colleges in Chandigarh
• Top Law Collages in Lucknow

Predictors & E-Books

• CLAT College Predictor
• MHCET Law ( 5 Year L.L.B) College Predictor
• AILET College Predictor
• Sample Papers
• Compare Law Collages
• Careers360 Youtube Channel
• CLAT Syllabus 2025
• CLAT Previous Year Question Paper
• NID DAT Exam
• Pearl Academy Exam

Predictors & Articles

• NIFT College Predictor
• UCEED College Predictor
• NID DAT College Predictor
• NID DAT Syllabus 2025
• NID DAT 2025
• Design Colleges in India
• Top NIFT Colleges in India
• Fashion Design Colleges in India
• Top Interior Design Colleges in India
• Top Graphic Designing Colleges in India
• Fashion Design Colleges in Delhi
• Fashion Design Colleges in Mumbai
• Top Interior Design Colleges in Bangalore
• NIFT Result 2024
• NIFT Fees Structure
• NIFT Syllabus 2025
• Free Design E-books
• List of Branches
• Careers360 Youtube channel
• IPU CET BJMC 2024
• JMI Mass Communication Entrance Exam 2024
• IIMC Entrance Exam 2024
• Media & Journalism colleges in Delhi
• Media & Journalism colleges in Bangalore
• Media & Journalism colleges in Mumbai
• List of Media & Journalism Colleges in India
• CA Intermediate
• CA Foundation
• CS Executive
• CS Professional
• Difference between CA and CS
• Difference between CA and CMA
• CA Full form
• CMA Full form
• CS Full form
• CA Salary In India

Top Courses & Careers

• Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com)
• Master of Commerce (M.Com)
• Company Secretary
• Cost Accountant
• Charted Accountant
• Credit Manager
• Financial Advisor
• Top Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Government Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Private Commerce Colleges in India
• Top M.Com Colleges in Mumbai
• Top B.Com Colleges in India
• IT Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• IT Colleges in Uttar Pradesh
• MCA Colleges in India
• BCA Colleges in India

Quick Links

• Information Technology Courses
• Programming Courses
• Web Development Courses
• Data Analytics Courses
• Big Data Analytics Courses
• RUHS Pharmacy Admission Test
• Top Pharmacy Colleges in India
• Pharmacy Colleges in Pune
• Pharmacy Colleges in Mumbai
• Colleges Accepting GPAT Score
• Pharmacy Colleges in Lucknow
• List of Pharmacy Colleges in Nagpur
• GPAT Result
• GPAT 2024 Admit Card
• GPAT Question Papers
• NCHMCT JEE 2024
• Mah BHMCT CET
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Delhi
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Hyderabad
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Mumbai
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Maharashtra
• B.Sc Hotel Management
• Hotel Management
• Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology

Diploma Colleges

• Top Diploma Colleges in Maharashtra
• UPSC IAS 2024
• SSC CGL 2024
• IBPS RRB 2024
• Previous Year Sample Papers
• Free Competition E-books
• Sarkari Result
• QnA- Get your doubts answered
• UPSC Previous Year Sample Papers
• CTET Previous Year Sample Papers
• SBI Clerk Previous Year Sample Papers
• NDA Previous Year Sample Papers

Upcoming Events

• NDA Application Form 2024
• UPSC IAS Application Form 2024
• CDS Application Form 2024
• CTET Admit card 2024
• HP TET Result 2023
• SSC GD Constable Admit Card 2024
• UPTET Notification 2024
• SBI Clerk Result 2024

Other Exams

• SSC CHSL 2024
• UP PCS 2024
• UGC NET 2024
• RRB NTPC 2024
• IBPS PO 2024
• IBPS Clerk 2024
• IBPS SO 2024
• Top University in USA
• Top University in Canada
• Top University in Ireland
• Top Universities in UK
• Top Universities in Australia
• Best MBA Colleges in Abroad
• Business Management Studies Colleges

Top Countries

• Study in USA
• Study in UK
• Study in Canada
• Study in Australia
• Study in Ireland
• Study in Germany
• Study in China
• Study in Europe

Student Visas

• Student Visa Canada
• Student Visa UK
• Student Visa USA
• Student Visa Australia
• Student Visa Germany
• Student Visa New Zealand
• Student Visa Ireland
• CUET PG 2025
• IGNOU B.Ed Admission 2024
• DU Admission 2024
• UP B.Ed JEE 2024
• LPU NEST 2024
• IIT JAM 2025
• AP OAMDC 2024
• Universities in India
• Top Universities in India 2024
• Top Colleges in India
• Top Universities in Uttar Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Bihar
• Top Universities in Madhya Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Tamil Nadu 2024
• Central Universities in India
• CUET DU Cut off 2024
• IGNOU Date Sheet 2024
• CUET DU CSAS Portal 2024
• CUET Response Sheet 2024
• CUET Result 2024
• CUET Participating Universities 2024
• CUET Previous Year Question Paper
• IGNOU Result 2024
• E-Books and Sample Papers
• CUET College Predictor 2024
• CUET Exam Date 2024
• CUET Cut Off 2024
• NIRF Ranking 2024
• IGNOU Exam Form 2024
• CUET PG Counselling 2024
• CUET Answer Key 2024

Engineering Preparation

• Knockout JEE Main 2024
• Test Series JEE Main 2024
• JEE Main 2024 Rank Booster

Medical Preparation

• Knockout NEET 2024
• Test Series NEET 2024
• Rank Booster NEET 2024

Online Courses

• JEE Main One Month Course
• NEET One Month Course
• IBSAT Free Mock Tests
• IIT JEE Foundation Course
• Knockout BITSAT 2024
• Career Guidance Tool

Top Streams

• IT & Software Certification Courses
• Engineering and Architecture Certification Courses
• Programming And Development Certification Courses
• Business and Management Certification Courses
• Marketing Certification Courses
• Health and Fitness Certification Courses
• Design Certification Courses

Specializations

• Digital Marketing Certification Courses
• Cyber Security Certification Courses
• Artificial Intelligence Certification Courses
• Business Analytics Certification Courses
• Data Science Certification Courses
• Cloud Computing Certification Courses
• Machine Learning Certification Courses
• View All Certification Courses
• UG Degree Courses
• PG Degree Courses
• Short Term Courses
• Free Courses
• Online Degrees and Diplomas
• Compare Courses

Top Providers

• Coursera Courses
• Udemy Courses
• Edx Courses
• Swayam Courses
• upGrad Courses
• Simplilearn Courses
• Great Learning Courses

Honesty is the Best Policy - 10 Lines, Short and Long Speech

Honesty means truthfulness. Honesty method developing the habit of telling the truth in the course of your life. People who practice honesty in their lives have strong moral character. An honest person is well behaved, always follows the rules and regulations, is disciplined, speaks the truth, and is punctual. Honest people can be trusted because they always tend to tell the truth.

10 lines on Honesty is the best policy

There is a famous saying, "Honesty is the best policy." It reflects the importance of loyalty, honesty and integrity in life.

Honesty makes a person fearless. Dishonest people are afraid of their bad behaviour.

It helps build strong relationships between people. It also gives you peace of mind and future happiness.

Honesty gives us courage and enables us to do the right thing even in stressful situations.

Honesty is one of the most important qualities of an outstanding leader. Honest people can create an atmosphere of trust and trust.

Honesty can also bring transparency to character and behaviour. Therefore, it helps to maintain strong relationships in business.

Honesty helps lead a simple life, dishonesty leads to a double life.

Benjamin Franklin was the first to say, "Honesty is the best policy." He also described qualities of honesty and integrity throughout his life.

Honesty gives everyone moral strength and maintains self-confidence.

An honest person fears no punishment.

Short Speech on Honesty is the best policy

As the saying goes, honesty is considered one of the best tools to achieve anything in life. However, today it is believed that honesty prevents quick success. Honesty is a rare quality in today's world.

Many people have started using dishonest means to achieve success in life. But they often forget that achievements achieved by dishonest means are short-lived. It's only for a short time. The seeds of dishonesty reap a bitter harvest. So, in the long run, honesty is the best policy.

As William Shakespeare rightly said, there is no legacy as rich as honesty. They always tell us to always tell the truth so we don't have to remember what we said. An honest person is always confident in himself, and one lie will result in many more.

After all, parents are the first teachers in a child's life. They should be taught to always be honest even when they are wrong. Honesty in childhood accompanies us as we grow up and makes us better people and good citizens.

No one should promote lies, but instead help others tell the truth. Being honest and positive can all change society. In conclusion, my dear friends, no matter how difficult or bad the situation may be, you must always tell the truth. Because truth always triumphs over lies.

Long Speech on Honesty is the best policy

Honesty is considered the greatest human virtue. It has always been highly regarded. When you are honest and tell the truth, you don't have to constantly remember what you said. But once you tell a lie, you have to keep spreading more lies to back it up. And at some point you'll start to forget the lie you told, and then you'll get entangled in its web. The truth always finds a way sooner or later. You will see yourself hurting those you love and those who love you by hiding one truth.

Honesty is not just telling the truth all the time. It also means not to harm others, to do wrong things, to fall into bad habits, or to do bad things. If you live by ethical rules, you won't get in trouble or hurt anyone along the way. Everyone trusts honest people and enjoys a happy and prosperous life.

Honest people always move forward in their careers and in every other aspect of their lives. Therefore, if you want to be successful, you must be honest at every stage of your life.

Relationships are no exception. A long, strong and lasting relationship is based on trust that comes from the honesty of both partners and honesty leads to loyalty. Same goes for friends—honesty will give you friends who will be true to you, who will be by your side no matter what, who will always be true to you.

Oftentimes, we all are dishonest and tempted to lie. Your honesty and loyalty may also come into question. But one way or another, if you still stay the same way and remain honest and true, you will be rewarded. So, admit if you are wrong, if you've offended someone, apologise sincerely. Truth can be punished once, but lies go nowhere. They are punished longer and harder. Truth deserves forgiveness, but lies don't. Trust, once lost, is gone forever.

Practicing Honesty

Here are some tips to help you practice honesty:

Be truthful in your interactions: Speak the truth in your dealings with others, even if it may be difficult or uncomfortable.

Own up to your mistakes: Admit when you have made a mistake and take responsibility for your actions.

Be transparent: Be open and transparent in your communication and avoid hiding or concealing information.

Treat others with respect: Treat others with the same honesty and respect that you would like to receive in return.

Avoid spreading rumors or gossip : Gossip and rumors can hurt others and damage their reputation. Instead, stick to the facts and avoid spreading false information.

Lead by example: Set a positive example for others by being honest and truthful in your own actions and decisions.

Cultivate self-awareness: Take time to reflect on your own behavior and how you can improve your honesty in different situations.

Remember, practicing honesty takes effort and commitment, but it can lead to stronger and more meaningful relationships with others, and greater personal integrity.

Applications for Admissions are open.

Tallentex 2025 - ALLEN's Talent Encouragement Exam

Register for Tallentex '25 - One of The Biggest Talent Encouragement Exam

Aakash iACST Scholarship Test 2024

Get up to 90% scholarship on NEET, JEE & Foundation courses

JEE Main Important Physics formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Physics formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Chemistry formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

TOEFL ® Registrations 2024

Accepted by more than 11,000 universities in over 150 countries worldwide

PTE Exam 2024 Registrations

Register now for PTE & Save 5% on English Proficiency Tests with ApplyShop Gift Cards

Download Careers360 App's

Regular exam updates, QnA, Predictors, College Applications & E-books now on your Mobile

Certifications

We Appeared in

Short Speech on Honesty is the Best Policy in English for Students and Children

Good morning! Respected Principal, teachers and my dear companions. I stand before u speak on the topic – honesty is the best policy .

Many people have started using unfair means to achieve success in life. However, they often forget that what they achieve through unfair means doesn’t last long; it is merely for a short period of time. The seeds of dishonesty reap a bitter harvest. Therefore, in the long run, honesty is the best policy.

As parents are the first teacher in a child’s life. They should teach them to be honest all the time even if they are wrong. Being honest since childhood stays with us when we grow up and enable us to become better human beings and good citizens.

In the end, I would like to say, my dear friends no matter how hard or bad a situation is one must always say the truth because the truth always wins over lies.

Related Posts:

10 Lines on Honesty is the Best Policy

Honesty is the quality that we all should aim to have in life, because it helps us to stay in the right direction even during difficult and challenging times. The character of the honest person can’t be questioned and society gives the utmost respect to such people who are truthful, loyal and courageous. We have seen in the society that people often use lies in order to avoid a difficult situation or to gain the materialistic benefits but in the long run, they have to suffer because they lose trust and faith in other people.

Ten Lines on Honesty is the Best Policy in English

We have provided 10 lines, 5 lines, 20 lines, few lines and sentences on Honesty is the Best Policy in English for Class 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. You can add these lines in your essays and paragraph writing in your exam as well as in the school competition. These lines will be very helpful in writing Honesty is the Best Policy essay, article on Honesty is the Best Policy or delivering a speech on the topic.

1) It is always said that “Honesty is the best policy”.

2) Honesty is to speak truth in life.

3) We feel good after we speak the truth.

4) It is always taught to us by our parents and teachers to be honest.

5) It is a bad habit to speak lies.

6) Nobody likes to be with dishonest people.

7) Honest people have good friends in their life.

8) People can easily trust honest people.

9) Honest people are not afraid of anything in life.

10) They live a happy and peaceful life.

10 Lines and Sentences on Honesty is the Best Policy

1) “Honesty is the best policy” is a valuable saying.

2) It was created by Edwin Sandys.

3) We all should learn to be truthful in life.

4) It requires courage to speak the truth in every situation of life.

5) The quality of speaking the truth makes us confident.

6) The people who speak lies are called dishonest.

7) Honesty develops punctuality and discipline in us.

8) Honest people have a good moral character.

9) They get loved and respected by everyone.

10) Honesty helps us in becoming successful in life.

5 Lines on Honesty is the Best Policy

1) Honesty means being truthful.

2) Honest people are loved by everyone.

3) Honesty helps to earn respect.

4) It helps to win the trust of others.

5) Being honest helps in success.

20 Lines on Honesty is the Best Policy

1) Honesty implies sincerity, maturity, and wisdom.

2) Honesty frees us from any bondage or baggage of guilt and mistakes.

3) Honesty approves the authenticity of a person; an honest person is always genuine.

4) Honesty is the very foundation of education amongst the children.

5) Honesty helps in improving people’s skills and making connections and relationships deeper.

6) Honesty brings humility and caring attitude as it reflects self – respect and respect for others as well.

7) Honesty becomes an unintentional habit and it attracts people of a similar mindset.

8) Honesty helps in owning the responsibility of work by bringing the straightforwardness and transparency in communication at the workplace.

9) An honest person lives a life free from complexities and discomfort however dishonest person is always in stress and dilemma.

10) Honesty helps the person in nurturing moral values like generosity, cooperation, respect, commitment.

11) ‘Honesty is the best policy’ is the famous proverb which reflects the importance of truthfulness, loyalty and integrity in the life of an individual.

12) The proverb ‘Honesty is the best policy’ means having positive social traits like truthfulness, loyalty, integrity in every situation of life, whether good or bad.

13) Benjamin Franklin was the first person who said that ‘Honesty is the best policy’ by demonstrating the traits and attributes of honesty and integrity throughout his life.

14) Honesty makes a person courageous, where a dishonest person is always fearful of his bad conduct.

15) Honesty helps in building strong relationship amongst the individuals and gives us the mental peace and happiness in the long run.

16) Honesty brings the trust and confidence in an individual whereas dishonesty creates lots of stress and fatigue.

17) Honesty gives us the courage and ability to do the right things even in difficult times of our life.

18) Honesty helps us to achieve simplicity in life whereas dishonesty creates a life of duality – the real-life and false life both opposite in nature.

19) Honesty is the most important characteristic of a great leader. An honest leader can create an environment of trust and confidence at the workplace.

20) Honesty brings transparency in communication and helps in maintaining close relationships in business transactions like customers and service providers.

We should always learn to live an honest life, take moral responsibility of whatever we do, whether right or wrong. Dishonesty may reward short term benefits in terms of wealth and power but can ruin the relationships in the longer run and can spoil the reputation too, hence we can conclude that ‘honesty is the best policy in life’.

Related Posts

10 lines on mahatma gandhi, 10 lines on patriotism, 10 lines on nationalism, 10 lines on national flag of india, 10 lines on importance of national flag, 10 lines on importance of national festivals of india, 10 lines on national festivals of india, 10 lines on national festivals celebration, 10 lines on a.p.j. abdul kalam, leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

Short Story on Honesty is the Best Policy in English for Kids

Children love short stories, which are an excellent medium for teaching young minds various vital life lessons. 

This story teaches its readers about the importance of being honest through the character of Ram.

We also learn how one gets rewarded for being truthful and punished for lying.

Reading Short Stories on Honesty for Kids

Adults and children both love the honesty stories. However, short stories and fairytales take monumental precedence when we particularly talk about children. Children get room to improve their imagination skills with stories. Therefore, parents and teachers should go the extra mile to ensure that kids have ample opportunity to read books other than their curriculum.

In this article, we will go through some short stories on honesty in simple and crisp language for a better understanding of kids. The story revolves around an honest and hardworking woodcutter who, one day, comes face to face with a major life hurdle. Keep reading to find out what happens to him and whether he gets rewarded or punished for being honest.

Origin of the Story

This is one of the most popular honesty stories of a woodcutter, taken from one of Aesop’s Fables, numbered 173 in the Perry Index. Aesop’s Fables or Aesopica is a collection of fables (succinct fictional stories that have animals, trees, and other non-living things as protagonists) written by Aesop – a slave and a storyteller believed to have lived in ancient Greece between 620 and 564 BCE. Aesop’s Fables have seeped into modern times through various sources.

The original title of the moral stories about honesty was The Honest Woodcutter. It centres on the moral value of ‘honesty is the best policy’ and explains it in an interesting way. We can find other tellings of the story with local divers throughout the world, in countries like Nigeria, Thailand, Tibet, and Japan. Still, the main plot line everywhere is the same as in the Aesopic version.

Summary of the Honesty Story

The short story revolves around a poor and destitute woodcutter named Ram. He lived in a small hut on the outskirts of a village. Ram would go to a nearby forest every day to cut trees, which he would send to sell to a wealthy merchant and earn his livelihood. Despite having no money, Ram was an honest man.

One day, while Ram was chopping wood near a river, the axe slipped out of his land and fell into a river. As the river was quite deep and his axe was his means of earning money, Ram became anxious. How would he bring food to the table without an axe, as woodcutting was the only skill he knew? He prayed to God for help, and suddenly, a miracle happened.

Ram’s prayers were so sincere that God appeared before him. When He asked Ram about the issue, the latter explained the entire episode to God. The Almighty then said that He would help Ram. God then slipped His hands into the river water, and plunged out a silver axe. Seeing the shiny silver thing, Ram replied that this was not his axe as his axe was made out of iron.

Then, God continued searching in the water when he found a golden axe and showed it to Ram. Even after seeing the glistening golden tool, Ram was not tempted, said it was not his axe, and refused to accept it. Finally, God searched again and pulled out an iron axe, seeing which Ram was delighted. Ram said the iron axe belonged to him and accepted it with elation. Seeing Ram’s honesty, God was impressed.

Then, do you know what happened? God was so moved by Ram’s integrity that he rewarded Ram with the golden and silver axes as a token of appreciation for being a good and honest man in this conniving world. Ram was overwhelmed by God’s gesture and accepted His gift with a whole heart. Thereafter, Ram was not a poor man. He continued to live a content, peaceful and happy life as a woodcutter. So, there we have it, the honesty story summary .

God Showing Ram the Golden Axe

Moral of the Story

We can learn a lot from the moral stories about honesty . Ram’s dignity, integrity, and truthful persona tell us that we should strive to be good people in our lives. He never accepted what was not his and only took what genuinely belonged to him. Thus, Ram’s story exemplifies the proverbs, ‘as you sow, so you reap’ and ‘honesty is the best policy.’ Therefore, when we are honest to others and ourselves, the Universe will shower kindness and gratitude on us in ways incomprehensible to us.

Note to Parents

Different moral stories about honesty are important for children so that they can learn invaluable life lessons and become good human beings in the future. The story revolves around an honest and hardworking woodcutter who, one day, comes face to face with a major life hurdle. Therefore, parents should provide children with the right storybooks and encourage them to develop the habit of reading, and learn moral lessons.

FAQs on Short Story on Honesty is the Best Policy in English for Kids

1. What was the occupation of Ram?

Ram was a woodcutter by profession.

2. Why was Ram anxious and worried?

Ram was worried because his axe, which was his sole means of livelihood, fell into a deep river.

3. Why was God kind to Ram?

God was kind to Ram because of his honesty, integrity, and righteousness, even in the face of adversity. He honestly refused when God showed him the golden and silver axe and asked if they belonged to him.

• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy For Class 3
• Honesty Is The Best Policy

Related Essay Topics

• Short Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy For Class 9
• Honesty Is Not Always The Best Policy Essay
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay Writing
• Is Honesty Always The Best Policy Essay Examples
• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy For Class 10
• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy For Class 5
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay For Class 5
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Argumentative Essay
• Expansion Of Ideas Essay Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Honesty Is The Best Policy In Hindi Essay
• Essay On Why Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Honesty Is Always The Best Policy Essay
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay For Kids
• Is Honesty Always The Best Policy Essay
• Write A Narrative Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Write An Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy For Class 7
• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy For Kids
• Honesty Is Not The Best Policy Essay
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay Examples
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay For Class 3
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay In English
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay In Hindi
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay In Urdu
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay Pdf
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay Story
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay Wikipedia
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Story Essay
• Narrative Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy
• A Narrative Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Argumentative Essay Draft On Honesty Is Not The Best Policy
• Argumentative Essay Draft On Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Argumentative Essay On Honesty Is Not The Best Policy
• Argumentative Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Essay Honesty Is Always The Best Policy
• Essay Honesty Is The Best Policy In Hindi
• Essay Is Honesty Always The Best Policy
• Essay On Honesty Is No Longer The Best Policy
• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy For Class 2
• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy For Class 6
• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy For Class 8
• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy In Urdu
• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy Thesis Statement
• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy Three Points
• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy Wikipedia
• Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy With Examples
• Essay On Proverb Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Essay On Topic Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Essays Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Honesty Is Always The Best Policy Essay Prompts
• Honesty Is Always The Best Policy Opinion Essay
• Honesty Is Still The Best Policy Essay
• Honesty Is The Best Policy 10 Lines Essay
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Easy Essay
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay Conclusion
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay For Class 10
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay For Class 2
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay For Class 7
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay For Upsc
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay In 100 Words
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay In English Class 6
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay In English Pdf
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay In Hindi And English
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay In Hindi Language
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay In Marathi
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay In Tamil
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay In Telugu
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay Paragraph
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay Pdf Download
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay Personal Experience
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay Spm
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay Tagalog
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Proverb Essay
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Short Essay Pdf
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Story For Essay
• Honesty Is The Best Policy Tagalog Essay
• Is Honesty Always The Best Policy Essay Prompts
• Is Honesty Always The Best Policy Persuasive Essay
• Is Honesty Always The Best Policy Sat Essay
• Is Honesty Always The Best Policy Sat Essay Examples
• Is Honesty Really The Best Policy Essay
• Is Honesty Still The Best Policy Essay
• Is Honesty The Best Policy Essay Sat
• Is Honesty The Best Policy Sat Essay
• Mega Essays Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Persuasive Essay Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Proverb Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay
• Reflective Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Short And Easy Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Short Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy In English
• Short Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy In Hindi
• Small Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy
• Sometimes Honesty Is Not The Best Policy Essay
• What Is Honesty Is The Best Policy Essay
• Why Honesty Is Not The Best Policy Essay
• Why Is Honesty The Best Policy Essay
• Write A Short Essay On Honesty Is The Best Policy

• Privacy Policy

Honesty is the Best Policy Story

Honesty is the best policy story- english notes for 1st year students.

• A New story on Honesty is the Best Policy

Honesty is the Best Policy

• List of All Stories

No comments:

Post a Comment

Trending Topics

Latest posts.

• Class 11 Total marks | FA, FSC, ICS, I.com
• Islamiat lazmi complete notes for 10th class pdf download
• 2nd Year English Complete Notes in PDF
• 2nd year all subjects notes PDF Download
• 1st year English complete notes pdf download
• 2nd Year Part II Book II Questions Notes free PDF Download
• ICS all Subjects names list of books
• 2nd year Urdu Notes Sindh Board pdf download
• 1st year Math Keybook PDF Download
• My Country Short English Essay
• FBISE SSC total marks and syllabus 2023
• BISE Hyderabad
• BISE Lahore
• bise rawalpindi
• BISE Sargodha
• career-counseling
• how to pass
• Punjab Board
• Sindh-Board
• Solved mcqs
• Student-Guide

• Environment
• Science & Technology
• Business & Industry
• Health & Public Welfare
• Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
• Public Inspection
• Presidential Documents
• Document Search
• Advanced Document Search
• Public Inspection Search
• Reader Aids Home
• Office of the Federal Register Announcements
• Using FederalRegister.Gov
• Understanding the Federal Register
• Recent Site Updates
• Federal Register & CFR Statistics
• Videos & Tutorials
• Developer Resources
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Congressional Review
• My Clipboard
• My Comments
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up
• Site Feedback
• Search the Federal Register

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government.

• Legal Status

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Cybersecurity Labeling for Internet of Things

A Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 07/30/2024

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register .

Document Statistics

Published document.

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Enhanced Content - Table of Contents

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, a. eligible devices or products, b. oversight and management of the iot labeling program, c. cyberlabs, cla-run labs, and in-house testing labs, d. two-step process for obtaining authority to use the fcc iot label, e. consumer iot product cybersecurity criteria and standards, f. the fcc iot label (cyber trust mark and qr code), g. registry, h. continuing obligations of entities authorized to use the fcc iot label, i. audits, post-market surveillance, and enforcement, j. international reciprocal recognition of the cyber trust mark, k. consumer education, l. cost/benefit analysis, i. legal authority, ii. incorporation by reference, iii. procedural matters, iv. ordering clauses, list of subjects in 47 cfr part 8, final rules, subchapter a—general, part 8—safeguarding and securing the internet, subpart a—protections for internet openness, subpart b—cybersecurity labeling program for iot products, enhanced content - submit public comment.

• This feature is not available for this document.

Enhanced Content - Read Public Comments

Enhanced content - sharing.

• Email this document to a friend

Enhanced Content - Document Print View

• Print this document

Enhanced Content - Document Tools

These tools are designed to help you understand the official document better and aid in comparing the online edition to the print edition.

These markup elements allow the user to see how the document follows the Document Drafting Handbook that agencies use to create their documents. These can be useful for better understanding how a document is structured but are not part of the published document itself.

Enhanced Content - Developer Tools

This document is available in the following developer friendly formats:.

• JSON: Normalized attributes and metadata
• XML: Original full text XML
• MODS: Government Publishing Office metadata

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

Official Content

• View printed version (PDF)

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 07/29/2024 at 8:45 am. It was viewed 0 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Federal Communications Commission.

Final rule.

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) establishes a voluntary cybersecurity labeling program for wireless consumer Internet of Things, or IoT, products. The program will provide consumers with an easy-to-understand and quickly recognizable FCC IoT Label that includes the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark and a QR code linked to a dynamic, decentralized, publicly available registry of more detailed cybersecurity information. This program will help consumers make safer purchasing decisions, raise consumer confidence regarding the cybersecurity of the IoT products they buy, and encourage manufacturers to develop IoT products with security-by-design principles in mind.

Effective date: This rule is effective August 29, 2024.

Incorporation by reference: The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 29, 2024.

Compliance date: Compliance with 47 CFR 8.208 , 8.209 , 8.212 , 8.214 , 8.215 , 8.217 , 8.218 , 8.219 , 8.220 , 8.221 , and 8.222 will not be required until the Office of Management and Budget has completed review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing that compliance date.

Zoe Li, Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-2490, or by email to [email protected] .

For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Nicole Ongele, Office of Managing Director, Performance and Program Management, 202-418-2991, or by email to [email protected] .

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, PS Docket No. 23-239, adopted March 14, 2024, and released March 15, 2024. The full text of this document is available by downloading the text from the Commission's website at: https://docs.fcc.gov/​public/​attachments/​FCC-24-26A1.pdf . When the FCC Headquarters reopens to the public, the full text of this document will also be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats for people with disabilities ( e.g., Braille, large print, electronica files, audio format, etc.) or to request reasonable accommodations ( e.g., accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to [email protected] or call the FCC's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Congressional Review Act: The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2) . The Commission will send a copy of the Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) .

1. With the Report and Order (Order), the Commission takes prompt and decisive measures to strengthen the nation's cybersecurity posture by adopting a voluntary cybersecurity labeling program for wireless IoT products. The Commission's IoT Labeling Program will provide consumers with an easy-to-understand and quickly recognizable FCC IoT Label that includes the U.S. Government certification mark (referred to as the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark) that provides assurances regarding the baseline cybersecurity of an IoT product, together with a QR code that directs consumers to a registry with specific information about the product. Consumers who purchase an IoT product that bears the FCC IoT Label can be assured that their product meets the minimum cybersecurity standards of the IoT Labeling Program, which in turn will strengthen the chain of connected IoT products in their own homes and as part of a larger national IoT ecosystem. The Order will help consumers make better purchasing decisions, raise consumer confidence with regard to the cybersecurity of the IoT products they buy to use in their homes and their lives, and encourage manufacturers of IoT products to develop products with security-by-design principles in mind.

2. In the Order, we set forth the framework by which the IoT Labeling Program will operate. We focus the IoT Labeling Program initially on IoT “products,” which we define to include one or more IoT devices and additional product components necessary to use the IoT device beyond basic operational features. Recognizing that a successful voluntary IoT Labeling Program will require close partnership and collaboration between industry, the Federal Government, and other stakeholders, we adopt an administrative framework for the IoT Labeling Program that capitalizes on the existing public, private, and academic sector work in this space, while ensuring the integrity of the IoT Labeling Program through oversight by the Commission.

3. Voluntary IoT Labeling Program. We establish a voluntary IoT Labeling Program for wireless consumer IoT products. While participation is voluntary, those that choose to participate must comply with the requirements of the IoT Labeling Program to receive authority to utilize the FCC IoT Label bearing the Cyber Trust Mark. The IoT Labeling Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 88 FR 58211 (August 25, 2023), sought comment on whether the proposed IoT Labeling Program should be voluntary, reasoning that “success of a cybersecurity labeling program will be dependent upon a willing, close partnership and collaboration between the federal government, industry, and other stakeholders.” The record shows substantial support for a voluntary approach. The Custom Electronic Design & Installation Association (CEDIA) suggests that IoT Labeling Program must be voluntary “for the program to gain momentum in the marketplace.” AIM, Inc. (AIM) suggests that the voluntary aspect of the IoT Labeling Program “will help drive adoption of the label by device producers.” Further, commenters suggest that a voluntary program will ensure the broadest reach, most efficiency, and widest access to a diversity of IoT technologies. We agree that a voluntary program will help drive adoption of the IoT Labeling Program, so that a willing, close partnership can be achieved. We also agree with the record that flexible, voluntary, risk-based best practices are the hallmarks of IoT security as it exists today and as it is being developed around the world. Additionally, we acknowledge the view that “consumer labeling is a difficult undertaking in any context,” especially Start Printed Page 61243 in the evolving area of cybersecurity, and that the “best approach is to start the Program with something achievable and effective.” We concur that willing participation will allow the IoT Labeling Program to be more easily achievable than requiring participation in a novel program. With the added imprimatur of a U.S. Government certification mark, the IoT Labeling Program will help distinguish products in the marketplace that meet minimum requirements and provide options to consumers.

4. We reject arguments that mandating participation in the IoT Labeling Program is necessary. While we recognize that a voluntary IoT Labeling Program may cause concern that smaller businesses with limited resources may choose not to participate, we believe the strong stakeholder engagement and collaboration that we expect to result from willing participation, and which is vital to establishing this new program, outweighs these risks. Further, while we acknowledge that, at least in the near term, allowing the IoT Labeling Program to be voluntary “could limit its adoption and impact,” we believe this risk is outweighed by the benefits that a voluntary program will garner, such as speed to market to hasten impact, efficiency of resources, and the likelihood that consumer demand will drive widespread adoption over time.

5. In adopting the IoT Labeling Program with the parameters discussed in the Order, we are establishing a collaborative effort between the Federal Government and relevant stakeholders in industry and the private sector. We emphasize that the Order is intended to provide the high-level programmatic structure that is reasonably necessary to establish the IoT Labeling Program and create the requirements necessary for oversight by the Commission, while leveraging the extensive work, labeling schemes, processes and relationships that have already been developed in the private sector. We also note that there is further development to be done by the private sector and other Federal agencies to implement the IoT Labeling Program and, as discussed below, expects many of the details not expressly addressed in the Order will be resolved through these separate efforts and by the authorities the Commission delegates to the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB or the Bureau).

6. The Order initially establishes the IoT Labeling Program for wireless consumer IoT products. We do not, however, foreclose the possibility of expanding the IoT Labeling Program in the future.

7. The record supports adopting an IoT Labeling Program that encompasses consumer-focused IoT products. We focus our IoT Labeling Program initially on consumer IoT products, rather than enterprise or industrial IoT products. Because medical devices regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) already are subject to statutory and regulatory cybersecurity requirements under other Federal laws more specifically focused on such devices, we do not include such devices in our IoT Labeling Program. In addition, we exclude from this program motor vehicles  [ 1 ] and motor vehicle equipment (as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(8) given that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) “has the authority to promulgate motor vehicle safety regulations on cybersecurity and has enforcement authority to secure recalls of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment with a safety-related defect, including one involving cybersecurity flaws.” We also exclude from our IoT Labeling program any communications equipment on the Covered List that the Commission maintains pursuant to the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act and equipment produced by certain other entities as discussed below. Finally, our initial IoT Labeling Program will focus on wireless consumer IoT devices consistent with the core of our section 302 authority governing the interference potential of devices that emit radio frequency energy—and thus we exclude wired IoT devices at this time.

8. Definition of IoT Devices. Although we focus our IoT Labeling program on IoT “products,” to lay a foundation we must first address the definition of IoT “devices” because this definition is a building block of the IoT “product” definition. In this respect, we adopt the modified version of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) definition of “IoT device” that the Commission proposed in the IoT Labeling NPRM. Specifically, the IoT Labeling NPRM proposed defining an IoT device to include (1) an internet-connected device capable of intentionally emitting radio frequency (RF) energy that has at least one transducer (sensor or actuator) for interacting directly with the physical world, coupled with (2) at least one network interface ( e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) for interfacing with the digital world. This definition builds on NIST's definition by adding “internet-connected” as a requirement, because “a key component of IoT is the usage of standard internet protocols for functionality.” The modified definition adopted in the Order also adds that a device must be “capable of intentionally emitting RF energy,” because aspects of the Commission's authority recognizes the particular risks of harmful interference associated with such devices. It should be noted that we direct the Label Administrator to collaborate with Cybersecurity Label Administrators (CLAs) and other stakeholders ( e.g., cyber experts from industry, government, and academia) as appropriate and recommend within 45 days of publication of updates or changes to NIST guidelines, or adoption by NIST of new guidelines, to the FCC any appropriate modifications to the Labeling Program standards and testing procedures to stay aligned with the NIST guidelines.

9. The record supports this reasoning. For example, Consumer Reports states that “[i]f you're going to sell a device where some of the benefits come from having a cloud connection, an app, and connectivity, then those must also be secured.” Consumer Reports provides further support for the Commission's reasoning by noting that “connectivity may be so central to the functionality of the device that it may no longer be able to operate safely [without it].” TIC Council Americas similarly “agrees that `internet-connected' should be included in the definition of IoT devices.” We agree with these arguments and adopt the modified IoT device definition requiring “internet-connected” device element to assure consumers that the functionality of the IoT device or product displaying the Cyber Trust Mark is reasonably secure as well. As noted by ioXt Alliance, including “internet-connected” in the definition of IoT makes “sense if the program focuses on IoT products instead of devices because not all IoT devices are `internet-connected.' ” Because the IoT Labeling Program will be focused on the broader category of IoT consumer products and not devices, including “internet-connected” in the definition of IoT device is further justified.

10. We disagree with commenters who argue the Commission should adopt the NIST definition of a device without change. We acknowledge that the record indicates some concern regarding the internet-connected element of the Commission's proposed definition; however, we find these concerns to be misplaced. TIC Council Start Printed Page 61244 Americas, for example, supports adding “internet-connected” to the definition, but argues that “there are devices that are able to connect to non-internet connected networks, and that those devices should not be excluded from the program.” While we do not foreclose the possibility of expanding the IoT Labeling Program to devices on non-internet connected networks in the future, we focus initially on the more common category of internet-connected consumer IoT products. Others argue that “internet-connected” is too “situational,” with a concern that the device might become “disconnected from the internet and, therefore, no longer be an `IoT device.' ” We do not agree that “internet-connected device” must be interpreted so narrowly as to exclude from the IoT Labeling Program devices that may become disconnected from the internet. “internet-connected,” in terms of the IoT Labeling Program, applies to the functional capability of the device; if the device is capable of being connected to the internet, the fact that it may not be connected at any given point in time does not exclude its eligibility for participation in the IoT Labeling Program. Further, any potential concerns arising from requiring an IoT device be “internet-connected” for inclusion in the IoT Labeling Program are outweighed by the benefit of giving consumers further assurance that the security of their IoT device or product extends to the connected functionality that a consumer expects when making such a purchase. In this respect, including “internet-connected” in the definition of IoT device also recognizes the highest risk functional component of an IoT device that distinguishes “smart” devices from other devices a consumer may use, and allows the Cyber Trust Mark to more effectively support consumer expectations.

11. The record also supports adding an RF energy-emitting element to the IoT device definition, acknowledging the Commission's authority under section 302 governing the interference potential of devices that emit RF energy and can cause harmful interference to radio communications. We reject the argument that limiting the definition to RF-emitting devices may lead to marketplace confusion if a product does not bear the Cyber Trust Mark due solely to its lack of RF energy emissions. In the first instance, we note the need to launch an achievable IoT Labeling Program consistent with the Commission's core authority. We also note that the benefits that a focus on wireless products will have in elevating the overall cybersecurity posture of the IoT ecosystem, especially in view of the record indicating that the majority of IoT devices are wireless, outweigh the risks associated with concerns regarding marketplace confusion. In any case, there will be a number of products—both wired and wireless—that do not bear the Cyber Trust Mark while uptake occurs. We also anticipate that consumer education in this space will help alleviate these concerns.

12. We further disagree with the view that the capability of a device to emit RF radiation is “unrelated to the general, far-ranging cybersecurity concerns the Commission is confronting in this proceeding.” Instead, we agree with Comcast that interference caused by a [distributed denial of service] attack raises “the same policy concerns and has the same practical effect as interference caused by traditional means.” The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) explains how hackers exploit unpatched vulnerabilities to attack a large number of wireless devices, and turning them into signal jammers to take down mobile networks. The record thus bears out our view that cybersecurity vulnerabilities in wireless IoT devices could cause harmful interference to radio communications. Given Congress' direction to the Commission in section 302 of the Act to guard against the interference potential of wireless devices, requiring the element of “emitting RF energy interference” in the IoT device definition for the initial iteration of the IoT Labeling Program focuses on that core Commission authority without ruling out future action regarding wired IoT devices. Further, while we acknowledge that devices that unintentionally or incidentally emit RF radiation may also pose interference potential, we find that a focus initially on “intentional” radiators provides the ability of a nascent program to target products with the highest risk profile from among those that emit RF energy.

13. Definition of IoT Products. We adopt the NIST definition of an “IoT product.” Specifically, the IoT Labeling NPRM's proposed definition of IoT product is an “IoT device and any additional product components ( e.g., backend, gateway, mobile app) that are necessary to use the IoT device beyond basic operational features.” The record supports adopting the IoT product definition developed by NIST, with Garmin International, Inc. (Garmin) noting that a fundamental purpose of the IoT Labeling Program “is to inform consumers regarding device security as they evaluate potential IoT purchases. . . . [T]his purpose is best achieved by focusing on `consumer IoT products' as defined by NIST in NISTIR 8425.” Additionally, Kaiser Permanente states that adopting the NIST definition of IoT products will “promote consistency across federal agency programs and related industry norms and requirements.” Further, the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) explained that the “Commission's implementation of the program will be more successful if it aligns as closely as possible to the definitions, processes and procedures already outlined by NIST.” We agree with these commenters, in that adopting NIST's IoT product definition will allow for consistency in the treatment of programmatic elements across the Federal Government, and allow the Commission to appropriately leverage the work existing in this space to promote the IoT Labeling Program's success. We also note that no commenters opposed the NIST definition of IoT products. For purposes of the IoT Labeling Program, when discussing IoT products and their “components” in the Order, we are using the NISTIR 8425 scoping definition of “components.” We believe that this definition allows the IoT Labeling Program to address the most relevant “package” components expected by consumers to be securable when making purchasing decisions, and encompasses the appropriate level of “component” pieces to address the functionalities that generate the most salient cybersecurity risks. [ 2 ] This view is supported by the record, with Consumer Technology Association (CTA) providing a proposed testing framework where “all individual components provided by the manufacturer should be in scope for testing,” including all components of the IoT product “that are necessary for the device to function in a normal use case scenario.”

14. IoT Devices vs. IoT Products. We find that the IoT Labeling Program should apply to “IoT products” as defined above, rather than being limited only to “IoT devices.” In the IoT Labeling NPRM, the Commission noted Start Printed Page 61245 that it was important to ensure that the IoT Labeling Program “would be sufficiently inclusive to be of value to consumers.” Since the Commission's adoption of the IoT Labeling NPRM, NIST has provided clarity in this realm by stating “the cybersecurity technical and non-technical outcomes defined in the NISTIR 8425 consumer profile apply to IoT products and not just IoT devices.” In addition, in reviewing the record, we believe applying the IoT Labeling Program to IoT products instead of IoT devices alone achieves these priorities because only by addressing the full functionality of a consumer product ( i.e., one or more IoT devices and any additional product components ( e.g., backend, gateway, mobile app) that are necessary to use the IoT device, beyond basic operational features) “including data communications links to components outside this scope but excluding those external components and any external third-party components that are outside the manufacturer's control” will provide consumers the necessary scope to satisfy the basic security expectation of the consumer and effectuate a discernable increase in the cybersecurity posture of the IoT ecosystem at large.

15. There is significant support in the record for an IoT product focus for the IoT Labeling Program. As explained by UL Solutions, applying the IoT Labeling Program to IoT products is necessary since “most IoT devices sold to consumers cannot be meaningfully used without additional components.” The Cybersecurity Coalition further supports this position by saying “IoT devices are typically part of a broader ecosystem of components that can have their own security issues, requiring `IoT cybersecurity' to extend beyond individual devices to be effective.” ITI notes an IoT product focus benefits consumers because it “will appropriately capture the relevant devices/components of the product that could be vulnerable to attack (and are always included in an IoT product, as NIST points out).” Applying the IoT Labeling Program to IoT products further benefits consumers by promoting consumer safety because it “encourages manufacturers to prioritize security across all components, ultimately leading to safer and more reliable IoT experiences for consumers.” Additionally, the record indicates that “the entire service which includes cloud infrastructure as well as apps or other ways to control or manage the device by the user, and not simply the physical device itself, is critical for an assessment of safety and security.” Further, focusing on IoT products aligns not only with the technical requirements of NISTIR 8425, but also “emerging requirements in Europe and the UK [United Kingdom], such as the EU [European Union] [Cyber Resilience Act], and EU Directives on consumer protections EU 2019/770, 771.” We agree and will apply the IoT Labeling Program to consumer IoT products, which provides for the greatest level of consumer benefit by prioritizing cybersecurity across the entirety of the consumer product, as compared to just the device, which is able to perform its full functionality only when working in conjunction with other product components.

16. We disagree with Samsung, CTIA—The Wireless Association (CTIA), LG Electronics, and CTA, who advocate focusing on IoT devices instead of IoT products. Samsung and CTIA argue that cybersecurity standards for devices are more mature than standards for products, and CTA argues that applying the FCC IoT Label to products would be more complex than devices. LG Electronics expresses concern that expanding to products “would require device manufacturers to attest to the security of product components that are outside of their control.” We do not agree that these rationales support limiting application of the IoT Labeling Program only to devices, rather than products. First, applying the IoT Labeling Program narrowly to IoT devices would run counter to NIST's guidance and considerable work in this space, upon which the Commission has relied for the basis for the IoT Labeling Program proposal. NIST's Profile of the IoT Core Baseline for Consumer IoT Products (NISTIR 8425), discussed above, provides fundamental IoT guidelines and applies to the broader product category, and the more recent NIST IoT Product Component Requirements Essay clearly states that the outcomes listed in NISTIR 8425 apply to consumer IoT products and not just IoT devices.

17. Further, regarding the notion that the IoT Labeling Program should be focused on IoT devices because existing standards for IoT devices are more readily available or achievable in the near term, we counter that the record shows existing IoT device standards can be leveraged to support assessing IoT products as well. As noted by commenter ITI, existing IoT industry standards “capture similar baseline themes” to the NIST criteria. In view of these similarities, the IoT Labeling Program can leverage these existing standards for IoT devices as building blocks, and tailor them in view of the IoT products being assessed. Accordingly, the need to realize the benefits of a product-level label weigh in favor of taking a small amount of time to get to product-based standards by leveraging existing device standards.

18. We also reject the argument that because “cybersecurity frameworks and testing programs have been developed to focus on device-level—rather than product-level—assessment” that a device-level IoT Labeling Program is the appropriate outcome. We note, for example, that ITI recommends recognizing IoT security assessments from our international partners, such as IoT assessments under the Cybersecurity Labelling Scheme (CLS) by Singapore's Cyber Security Agency, which assesses the overall IoT product, and not just a single device included in the IoT product. In this regard, the ability to recognize international efficiencies for IoT Labeling Program participants would be hindered by limiting the Cyber Trust Mark to the device level, as Singapore's CLS (and other evolving international standards) focus on product-level assessments.

19. Finally, applying the IoT Labeling Program to products enhances value to consumers without requiring manufacturers to be responsible for products or devices that are outside of their control. The record shows that a consumer's expectation of security extends to the entire IoT product they purchase. This consumer expectation is evidenced in the record by ITI, clarifying that “because consumers purchase, interact with, and view IoT merchandise not as component parts but as complete physical product . . . Consumers are primarily concerned with the entire physical product they are purchasing.” Additionally, as noted by UL Solutions, “most IoT devices sold to consumers cannot be meaningfully used without additional components.” In view of this need, a manufacturer seeking authority to affix the FCC IoT Label is expected to secure the whole IoT product, including the product's internal communication links connecting the different parts of the product to each other as well as the product's communication links that connect the IoT product to the outside world. We do not require manufacturers to be responsible for third-party products or devices (including apps) that are outside of their control;  2 Start Printed Page 61246 however, where a manufacturer allows third-party apps, for example, to connect to and they allow that application to control their IoT product, such manufacturer is responsible for the security of that connection link and the app if such app resides on the IoT product. Further, we agree with CTIA that if “a [p]roduct [c]omponent also support[s] other IoT Products through alternative features and interfaces, these alternative features and interfaces may, through risk-assessment, be considered as separate from and not part of the IoT Product for purposes of authorization.” Moreover, NIST enumerates the dangers of an IoT device-only focus, establishing that the “additional product components have access to the IoT device and the data it creates and uses-making them potential attack vectors that could impact the IoT device, customer, and others,” and that “these additional components can introduce new or unique risks to the IoT product.” Consumer expectations that the FCC IoT Label would apply to the entirety of the product purchased is further highlighted by Consumer Reports, explaining that “If everything is sold within a box, then everything in the box should be approved to use the mark.” Consumer Reports also notes that “[i]f the labeling programs were only to address the physical device and not other system components, consumers would likely be deceived as to the scope and efficacy of the program.” The record is adamant that the “Cyber Trust Mark must be trusted by consumers to be successful.” In view of the record, securing only a portion of an IoT product by just assessing a single IoT device included in the IoT product, instead of assessing the devices and components that comprise the IoT product holistically, could deceive consumers and go against consumer expectation that the technology being brought into their homes is reasonably secure. We weigh heavily the likelihood for consumer confusion should the device-only approach be taken, and accordingly we apply this consumer IoT Labeling Program to IoT products and not just IoT devices.

20. In sum, although there are relative advantages and disadvantages with either a narrow focus on IoT devices or a broader focus on IoT products, on balance we are persuaded to focus our initial IoT Labeling Program on IoT products. As explained above, we find commenters' concerns about encompassing full IoT products in our IoT Labeling Program to be overstated. At the same time, we see significant shortcomings with a narrower focus just on IoT devices. Weighing the totality of these considerations, we are persuaded that targeting the IoT Labeling Program on IoT products is the best approach at this time.

21. Consumer IoT Products vs. Enterprise IoT Products. The IoT Labeling Program applies to the labeling of consumer IoT products that are intended for consumer use, and does not include products that are primarily intended to be used in manufacturing, healthcare, industrial control, or other enterprise applications. While we do not foreclose expansion of the IoT Labeling Program at a later date, this initial scope will provide value to consumers most efficiently and expediently, without added complexity from the enterprise environment.

22. The record supports the IoT Labeling Program having a consumer IoT focus, with support provided by UL Solutions, the Cybersecurity Coalition, and the Connectivity Standards Alliance (CSA), among others. The FDA also suggests that IoT outside of the consumer scope may need “[g]reater and more tailored controls,” suggesting that different considerations might attend IoT with a purpose outside of that in the routine consumer realm. Additionally, commenters highlight the differing security needs of consumer and enterprise products. For example, UL Solutions notes that “IoT products intended for commercial or industrial settings are exposed to different types of threats than consumer products and often carry higher risk if breach, which necessitates different requirements.” CSA also highlights that “[e]nterprise device security approaches are often customized and vary based on the specific needs of the business.” We agree that applying the IoT Labeling Program to consumer IoT products will reduce complexity, which will bolster the likelihood of success when starting the new IoT Labeling Program.

23. The International Speech and Communication Association (ISCA) supports including enterprise IoT, stating that a broader scope will ensure the IoT Labeling Program remains flexible to the extent that the boundary between consumer and enterprise IoT is blurring. Further, ISCA and Abhishek Bhattacharyya note that attackers have more to gain from targeting enterprise settings. While there are considerable threat vectors and vulnerabilities associated with all classes of IoT products, [ 3 ] we agree with Everything Set, Inc., that focusing the IoT Labeling Program on household use of IoT products will be more useful and have greater impact, given that enterprises tend to have more time, resources, and expertise to devote to network security. They note further that many small- and medium-sized businesses also buy consumer devices, so a consumer-focused Cyber Trust Mark would be of utility to them, as well. We believe in the near term that a consumer focus will provide the most initial impact, and create a level of recognition and trust in the Cyber Trust Mark itself as the IoT Labeling Program progresses that could be leveraged to enterprise IoT at a later time, and we therefore defer consideration of the IoT Labeling Program's expansion.

24. Exclusion of Certain Devices/Products. As an initial matter, we exclude from the IoT Labeling Program medical devices regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (within the FDA) expresses concern that the Commission's labeling IoT Labeling Program may lack controls and minimum criteria that it believes are necessary for IoT medical devices. In addition, the FDA is concerned that including medical devices in the IoT Labeling Program may cause consumer confusion and “potentially creates conflict where product manufacturers attempt to both qualify for the Cyber Trust Mark and comply with existing statutory and regulatory cybersecurity requirements under other federal laws, such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).” These considerations persuade us to exclude FDA-regulated medical devices from our IoT Labeling Program, consistent with commenters' recommendations. In Start Printed Page 61247 addition, we exclude from this program motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment given that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) “has the authority to promulgate motor vehicle safety regulations on cybersecurity and has enforcement authority to secure recalls of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment with a safety-related defect, including one involving cybersecurity flaws.”

25. Exclusion of Devices/Products Produced by Certain Entities. We adopt the following measures to promote national security in connection with the IoT Labeling Program. The IoT Labeling NPRM proposed to exclude from the IoT Labeling Program (1) any communications equipment on the Covered List maintained by the Commission pursuant to section 2 of the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act (STCNA); (2) any IoT device produced by an entity identified on the Covered List ( i.e., an entity named or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates) as producing “covered” equipment; and (3) any device or product from a company named on certain other lists maintained by other Federal agencies that represent the findings of a national security review. We now adopt all of these prohibitions as they relate to our decision to focus the IoT Labeling Program on consumer IoT products. Thus, any communications equipment identified on the Covered List, now or in the future, will be ineligible for the IoT Labeling Program, and any such product will be denied approval to use the Cyber Trust Mark. Furthermore, any additional products produced by an entity identified on the Covered List as producing “covered” equipment, or any product containing devices or product components produced by such an entity, will be ineligible for the IoT Labeling Program; this would include products that may not fit within the definition of “communications equipment” under STCNA. Only entities identified on the Covered List as producers of “covered” equipment—not those on the Covered List only because of their “covered” services—are subject to this prohibition. In addition, we adopt the proposal that IoT devices or products containing devices manufactured by companies named on the Department of Commerce's Entity List, named on the Department of Defense's List of Chinese Military Companies, or suspended or debarred from receiving Federal procurements or financial awards, including those published as ineligible for award on the General Service Administration's System for Award Management, will not be authorized to display the FCC IoT Label or participate in the IoT Labeling Program. Further, we exclude from the IoT Labeling Program any products containing devices produced or manufactured by these entities. We conclude that inclusion on these lists represents a determination by an agency charged with making national security determinations that a company's products lack the indicia of trustworthiness that the Cyber Trust Mark is intended to represent. Our action here thus supports and reinforces the steps we have taken in other proceedings to safeguard consumers and communications networks from equipment that poses an unacceptable risk to national security and that other Federal agencies have taken to identify potential concerns that could seriously jeopardize the national security and law enforcement interests of the United States.

26. With the exception of China's comments raising the same World Trade Organization (WTO) issue we rejected in the Report and Order applying the Covered List to the FCC equipment authorization program, the record overwhelmingly supports excluding from the IoT Labeling Program these products and devices produced by companies identified on the Covered List. Additionally, USTelecom, CTIA, CTA, Cybersecurity Coalition and Consumer Reports specifically support excluding from the IoT Labeling Program IoT devices that are manufactured by companies on the Covered List, but also urge the Commission to restrict any equipment manufactured by companies on additional Federal restricted lists, including those otherwise banned from Federal procurement. Consumer Reports agrees with excluding systems that include components included on the Covered List or similar lists from the IoT Labeling Program. Each of these lists represent the determination by relevant Federal agencies that the entities on the list may pose a national security threat within their respective areas, and as such we find that we cannot separately sanction their products as trustworthy via the IoT Labeling Program. While each list is designed to support specific prohibitions, their use here only excludes their contents from a voluntary program representing U.S. Government assessment of their security and does not prohibit any other use. Insofar as the FCC IoT Label reflects the FCC's signal to consumers about cybersecurity, it is reasonable for the FCC to take a cautious approach especially for those products for which relevant Federal agencies have expressed other security concerns.

27. Applicant Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury. To implement the Commission's goal of ensuring the Cyber Trust Mark is not affixed to products that pose a risk to national security or a risk to public safety, we require applicants seeking authorization to use the FCC IoT Label to provide a declaration under penalty of perjury that all of the following are true and correct:

(i) The product for which the applicant seeks to use the FCC IoT Label through cybersecurity certification meets all the requirements of the IoT Labeling Program.

(ii) The applicant is not identified as an entity producing covered communications equipment on the Covered List, established pursuant to § 1.50002 of the Commission's rules.

(iii) The product is not comprised of “covered” equipment on the Covered List.

(iv) The product is not produced by any entity, its affiliates, or subsidiaries identified on the Department of Commerce's Entity List, or the Department of Defense's List of Chinese Military Companies.

(v) The product is not owned or controlled by or affiliated with any person or entity that has been suspended or debarred from receiving Federal procurements or financial awards, to include all entities and individuals published as ineligible for award on the General Service Administration's System for Award Management.

(vi) The applicant has taken every reasonable measure to create a securable product.

(vii) The applicant will, until the support period end date disclosed in the registry, diligently identify critical vulnerabilities in our products and promptly issue software updates correcting them, unless such updates are not reasonably needed to protect against security failures.

(viii) The applicant will not elsewhere disclaim or otherwise attempt to limit the substantive or procedural enforceability of this declaration or of any other representations and commitments made on the FCC IoT Label or made for purposes of acquiring or maintaining authorization to use it.

28. If any applicant fails to make any of the above disclosures within 20 days after being notified of its noncompliance, such failure would result in termination of any improperly granted authorization to use the Label, and/or subject the applicant to other Start Printed Page 61248 enforcement measures. The applicant is required to update its declaration, or withdraw a not-yet granted application, if any of the applicant's circumstances impacting the declarations materially change while the application is pending.

29. Wireless Consumer IoT Devices vs. Wired Consumer IoT Devices. The Order adopts the IoT Labeling NPRM's proposal that the IoT Labeling Program apply initially to wireless consumer IoT devices. This is consistent with the IoT Labeling NPRM proposal to focus the scope of the IoT Labeling Program on intentional radiators that generate and emit RF energy by radiation or induction and exclude wired-only IoT devices, noting such devices are encompassed by the Commission's section 302 authority governing the interference potential of devices that emit RF energy and can cause harmful interference. We find that this distinction is appropriate, both because of the Commission's interest in keeping the scope of the IoT Labeling Program clear and manageable during its debut and because there is support in the record for wireless intentional radiators as most prevalent types of consumer IoT devices contemplated in the IoT Labeling NPRM. While we recognize that there are other types of RF devices—both unintentional and incidental radiators—that are subject to our jurisdiction, we are not including them in our IoT Labeling Program at this time.

30. We acknowledge there is substantial support in the record for including wired IoT consumer products within the scope of the IoT Labeling Program. Consumer Reports recommends including both wired and wireless IoT within the scope of the IoT Labeling Program, pointing out that wired IoT devices or products are vulnerable to cybersecurity threats just as wireless IoT devices or products are. Consumer Reports also points out that “while wireless devices are the majority of IoT devices, there are still almost 700 million wired IoT devices globally, and they are expected to grow by a 10% [compound annual growth rate] through 2027 according to IoT Analytics `State of IoT—Spring 2023 Report.' ” TÜV SÜD also encourages the Commission to cover both wired and wireless devices within the scope of the IoT Labeling Program, and AIM emphasizes the importance of the security of both wired and wireless IoT to the cybersecurity ecosystem. CTA further states that the Commission should not define the scope of the IoT Labeling Program in such a way as to exclude wired IoT products. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) points out that both wired and wireless IoT are included in the NIST definition.

31. While we agree that wired IoT products are susceptible to cyberattacks and similarly pose security risks to consumers and others, we find it to be in the public interest for the IoT Labeling Program to start with wireless consumer IoT products in view of the record indicating that “wireless devices are the majority of IoT devices,” which would indicate that a focus on this product segment will have a substantial impact on the overall IoT market. The record also supports this approach, with Keysight Technologies, Inc. concurring that “the program should include consumer RF IoT products initially.” Further, we do not agree with arguments that there may be an unintended perception that “[c]reating a program that would only certify wireless IoT devices would send an improper message that only wireless IoT devices are secure.” Instead, we believe that beginning with wireless IoT products is both feasible and can be adopted with more speed, providing more prompt benefit in the marketplace. Further, a more limited scope will streamline the initial rollout of the IoT Labeling Program, provide focus to the additional tasks necessary to stand up the program, and lay the groundwork for expansion, and we do not foreclose consideration including wired IoT products in the future. As such and as discussed below, we also defer consideration of our legal authority to consider wired products at this time.

32. Based on the comments filed regarding oversight and management of the IoT Labeling Program, the Commission finds it is in the public interest to continue to foster public-private collaboration, including with regard to the management and administration of the IoT Labeling Program, while ensuring the Commission retains ultimate control and oversight of the IoT Labeling Program. In this respect, providing a broad, unifying government oversight framework for existing private labeling schemes and other private efforts in this context will allow current participants in this ecosystem to capitalize on their existing investments and relationships in a way that not only promotes the overall effectiveness of the FCC's IoT Labeling Program and increases the security of the IoT ecosystem.

33. The Commission adopts the IoT Labeling NPRM proposal that the IoT Labeling Program be comprised of a single “program owner” responsible for the overall management and oversight of the IoT Labeling Program, with administrative support from one or more third-party administrators. NIST's white paper recommends one “scheme owner” responsible for managing the labeling program, determining its structure and management, and performing oversight to ensure the program is functioning consistently in keeping with overall objectives. We agree that it is appropriate for a single entity to perform these functions and find that the Commission will be the program owner of the IoT Labeling Program, and as such retains ultimate control over the program, and determines the program's structure. CSA highlights support in the record for having the Commission as the program owner, arguing that “[p]lacing the regulatory authority in the hands of the Commission and providing government-backed endorsement may strengthen trust with Consumers.” However, the NIST Cybersecurity White Paper also recommends the “scheme owner” be responsible for defining the conformity assessment requirements, developing the label and associated information, and conducting consumer outreach and education.

34. While the Commission as program owner will oversee the elements of the program, the program will be supported by Cybersecurity Label Administrators (Label Administrators or CLAs) who will manage certain aspects of the program and authorize use the FCC IoT Label as well as a Lead Administrator selected by the Bureau from among the CLAs, which will undertake additional duties including acting as the point of contact between the CLAs and the Commission. In addition, the Commission believes it is appropriate for a Lead Administrator, in collaboration with the CLAs and other stakeholders, to identify or develop, and recommend to the Commission for approval, the IoT specific standards and testing procedures, procedures for post-market surveillance, as well as design and placement of the label. The Lead Administrator will also be responsible for developing, in coordination with stakeholders, a consumer education plan and submitting the plan to the Bureau and engaging in consumer education. Each of these duties are discussed in depth below. The Cybersecurity Coalition recommends the Commission utilize a single administrator, rather than multiple administrators “to reduce the likelihood of conflict among administrators and simplify engagement with Start Printed Page 61249 manufacturers, consumers, and government agencies.” CTA, on the other hand, contemplates multiple administrators, suggesting that the Commission may consider leveraging “a consortium of scheme owners[ ] to ensure that the IoT Labeling Program is administered and issues are adjudicated in an effective, objective, and timely fashion.” We agree with CTA's reasoning, while also acknowledging the Cybersecurity Coalition's concern regarding potential conflict. Accordingly, the Bureau will select a Lead Administrator from among the CLA applicants to address conflicts.

35. As an initial matter, we have looked to the structure of, and experiences with, the Commission's equipment authorization program and rules in developing the IoT Labeling Program, as proposed and discussed in the IoT Labeling NPRM. We emphasize, however, that the IoT Labeling Program is new and distinct, and it will operate under its own rules and with new authorities specifically delegated to PSHSB. This is consistent with the record developed in the proceeding, in which many commenters urged the Commission to keep the equipment authorization and IoT Labeling programs separate. In addition, several commenters addressed whether obtaining a valid equipment authorization should be a pre-requisite for obtaining the Cyber Trust Mark, or whether obtaining approval to use the Cyber Trust Mark would be required as a condition for applying for an equipment authorization. We emphasize that our IoT Labeling Program is voluntary, and parties are required to follow the Commission's equipment authorization program regardless of whether or not they choose to participate in the IoT Labeling Program. We also clarify that there is no requirement to complete the equipment authorization process before qualifying for the Cyber Trust Mark; however, our existing part 2 rules will continue to prohibit the marketing of a device that does not have a valid equipment authorization.

36. We conclude that it is in the public interest and supported in the record to adopt the IoT Labeling Program structure recommended by NIST, with the modifications discussed above regarding third-party administrators that are overseen by the Commission as the program owner. This and the following paragraph preview the remaining roles and responsibilities for the IoT Labeling Program, which will be developed in depth in the remaining sections of the Order. The Commission also will be responsible for coordinating mutual recognition of the Cyber Trust Mark with international partners, coordinating with the Lead Administrator, Federal partners, industry, and other stakeholders on consumer education programs, and performing oversight to ensure the IoT Labeling Program is functioning properly. In addition, the Commission will specify the data to be included in a consumer-friendly registry that provides additional information about the security of the products approved to use the Cyber Trust Mark and is accessible through the QR Code that is required to accompany the Cyber Trust Mark. Further, the Commission will own and maintain the registration for the Cyber Trust Mark, which may only be used when the product has been appropriately tested and complies with the Commission's IoT Labeling Program requirements.

37. The Commission will approve qualified Cybersecurity Label Administrators (Label Administrators or CLAs) to manage certain aspects of the labeling program and be authorized by the Commission to license the Cyber Trust Mark to manufacturers whose products are in compliance with the Commission's IoT cybersecurity labeling rules. The Commission will also select a Lead Administrator, which will be responsible for carrying out additional administrative responsibilities, including but not limited to reviewing applications and recognizing qualified and accredited Cybersecurity Testing Laboratories (CyberLABs) and engaging in consumer education regarding the Cyber Trust Mark. The Lead Administrator will also collaborate with cyber experts from industry, government, academia, and other relevant sectors if needed to identify, develop, and maintain consumer IoT cybersecurity technical and conformity assessment standards that are based on NIST standards and guidance, that will be submitted to PSHSB for consideration and approval, and, subject to any required public notice and comment, adopted into the Commission's rules. The standards and testing procedures developed or identified in collaboration with CLAs and other stakeholders and submitted by the Lead Administrator for consideration by the Commission will, in turn, be used by accredited  [ 4 ] testing labs recognized by the Lead Administrator—whether CyberLABs, [ 5 ] a CLA-run lab, or a testing lab internal to a company (in-house testing lab) for product testing.

38. Retaining key overarching functions within the Commission as discussed above will ensure the effective administration and oversight of this government program and protect the integrity of the FCC-owned Cyber Trust Mark, while perpetuating, where appropriate, the relevant efforts of the private sector that meet the goals and requirements of the program. We also agree with CSA that program ownership by the Commission will increase consumer confidence in the Cyber Trust Mark. In addition, the clear high-level oversight functions retained for the Commission ensures the Commission has meaningful decision-making control. Here, while the CLA(s) will recommend standards and testing procedures to be approved by the Commission as well as manage the day-to-day administrative functions assigned, the Commission will ultimately review, consider, and exercise judgment on whether the requirements are appropriate to support the Commission's program, and on how the program is ultimately administered.

39. We adopt the IoT Labeling NPRM's proposal that one or more qualified third-party administrators (Cybersecurity Labeling Administrators or CLAs) be designated by the Commission to manage certain aspects of the labeling program and be authorized to certify the application of the FCC IoT Label by manufacturers whose products are found to be in compliance with the Commission's IoT cybersecurity labeling rules and regulations. The record supports the Commission's adoption of a labeling program that is supported by CLAs. Start Printed Page 61250 According to TIC Council Americas, involving independent third-party administrators who verify that labeled products meet the program requirements will bring trust, consistency, and an impartial level playing field to the Cyber Trust Mark. The Cybersecurity Coalition, Widelity, and CSA highlight that utilizing experienced third-party administrators will allow the program to run more efficiently and will provide “the required expertise for the administration of the program.” CTA and other commenters also assert that the IoT Labeling Program will be best served if the Commission “leverage[s] the unique expertise and existing certification infrastructure offered by well-regarded industry organizations.” AHAM says that “[g]iven the volume and increasing numbers of IoT products on the market, [the] FCC needs to give manufacturers as many options as possible as far as obtaining the Cyber Trust mark” and that “third parties will play an important role in any successful program.”

40. CTA supports assigning certain responsibilities to one or more independent, ( i.e., neutral) third-party administrators which it refers to as “Authorized Scheme Owners.” However, the Commission disagrees with this descriptor insofar as some commenters are confused as to whether the “scheme owner” is the entity ultimately responsible for the program, or a third-party entity responsible for certain program administration functions or specified tasks under the ultimate direction of the Commission. To avoid confusion, the Commission refers to these third-party administrators as CLAs. These CLAs are neutral third parties independent of the applicant and within the context of a program overseen by the Commission.

41. We believe that authorizing one or more CLAs to handle the routine administration of the program will help to ensure a timely and consistent rollout of the program. In particular, several private entities have already implemented robust IoT cybersecurity labeling programs with established business processes in place to receive applications from IoT manufacturers and conduct conformity/standards testing against widely accepted cybersecurity guidelines ( e.g., NIST guidelines) or proprietary product profiles based on the NIST criteria. We anticipate a large number of entities will seek grants of authorization to use the FCC IoT Label and we are concerned that if we were to adopt a program limited to a single administrator, there may be bottlenecking delays in the processing of applications and a single administrator could result in a single point of failure in the program. Allowing multiple CLAs to execute the role of day-to-day administration of the program will provide for the simultaneous processing of a significant number of applications, provide redundancy of structure, and potentially foster competition in this space to better serve those seeking access to the label. In addition, leveraging the expertise of multiple existing program managers and using pre-existing systems and processes that meet our program specifications will minimize administrative delay, while promoting an efficient and timely rollout of the Cyber Trust Mark. This will also ensure that the Commission effectively utilizes the expertise of those entities who have made investments in their own cybersecurity labeling programs and have experience working with manufacturers and IoT conformity and standards testing, expediting the ability to provide consumers with a simple way to understand the relative security of the products and devices they purchase under a government-backed standard.

42. We recognize, however, that there is a need for a common interface between the CLAs and the Commission to facilitate ease of engagement and to conduct other initial tasks associated with the launch of the program. We delegate authority to PSHSB to review CLA applications, review CLA applications that also request consideration for Lead Administrator, select the Lead Administrator and manage changes in the Lead Administrator.

43. Lead Administrator Duties. The Lead Administrator will undertake the following duties in addition to the CLA duties outlined below:

a. interface with the Commission on behalf of the CLAs, including but not limited to submitting to the Bureau all complaints alleging a product bearing the FCC IoT Label does not meet the requirements of the Commission's labeling program;

b. conduct stakeholder outreach as appropriate;

c. accept, review, and approve or deny applications from labs seeking recognition as a lab authorized to perform the conformity testing necessary to support an application for authority to affix the FCC IoT Label, [ 6 ] and maintain a publicly available list of Lead Administrator-recognized labs and a list of labs that have lost their recognition;

d. within 90 days of release of the Public Notice announcing the Lead Administrator selection, the Lead Administrator shall, in collaboration with stakeholders ( e.g., cyber experts from industry, government, and academia) as appropriate:

i. submit to the Bureau recommendations identifying and/or developing the technical standards and testing procedures for the Commission to consider with regard to at least one class of IoT products eligible for the IoT Labeling Program. The Bureau will evaluate the recommendations, and if the Bureau approves of the recommendations, subject to any required public notice and comment, incorporate them by reference into the Commission's rules;

ii. submit to the Bureau a recommendation on how often a given class of IoT products must renew their request for authority to bear the FCC IoT Label, which may be dependent on the type of product, and that such a recommendation be submitted in connection with the relevant standards recommendations for an IoT product or class of IoT products; The Bureau will evaluate the recommendations, and if the Bureau approves of the recommendations, subject to any required public notice and comment, incorporate them by reference into the Commission's rules;

iii. submit to the Bureau recommendations on the design of the FCC IoT Label, including but not limited to labeling design and placement ( e.g., size and white spaces, product packaging.) The Bureau will evaluate the recommendations, and if the Bureau approves of the recommendations, subject to any required public notice and comment, incorporate them by reference into the Commission's rules; and

iv. submit to the Bureau recommendations with regard to updates to the registry including whether the registry should be in additional languages, and if so, to recommend specific languages for inclusion;

v. submit to the Bureau recommendations on the design of the FCC IoT Label, including but not limited to labeling design and placement ( e.g., size and white spaces, product packaging, whether to include Start Printed Page 61251 the product support end date and other security and privacy information on the label.) The Bureau will evaluate the recommendations, and if the Bureau approves of the recommendations, subject to any required public notice and comment, incorporate them by reference into the Commission's rules.

e. The Lead Administrator shall, in collaboration with CLAs and other stakeholders ( e.g., cyber experts from industry, government, and academia) as appropriate recommend within 45 days of publication of updates or changes to NIST guidelines, or adoption by NIST of new guidelines, to the FCC any appropriate modifications to the Labeling Program standards and testing procedures to stay aligned with the NIST guidelines;

f. submit to the Commission reports on CLAs' post-market surveillance activities and findings in the format and by the date specified by PSHSB;

g. develop in collaboration with stakeholders a consumer education campaign, submit the plan to the PSHSB, and participate in consumer education;

h. receive complaints about the Labeling Program, including but not limited to consumer complaints about the registry and coordinate with manufacturers to resolve any technical problems associated with consumers accessing the information in the registry;

i. facilitate coordination between CLAs; and

j. submit to the Commission any other reports upon request of the Commission or as required by Commission rule.

44. Cybersecurity Label Administrator Duties. CLA(s) are responsible for various administrative duties, including:

a. receive and evaluate applications and supporting data requesting authority to use the FCC IoT Label on the product subject to the application;

b. grant an application only if it meets all of the Commission's requirements to use the FCC IoT Label and authorize ( i.e., certify) the applicant to use the FCC IoT Label on the product subject to the application;

c. ensure that manufacturers make all required information accessible by the IoT registry;

d. participate in consumer education campaign in coordination with the Lead Administrator;

e. perform post-market surveillance activities, such as audits, in accordance with ISO/IEC 17065 and submit periodic reports to the Lead Administrator of their post-market surveillance activities and findings in the format and by the date specified by PSHSB; and

f. receive complaints alleging an IoT product does not support the cybersecurity criteria conveyed by the Cyber Trust Mark and refer these complaints to the Lead Administrator which will notify PSHSB. [ 7 ]

45. The record supports the use of CLAs to support a variety of tasks within the program's construct. ioXt Alliance supports utilizing CLAs for evaluating and certifying products for the Cyber Trust Mark. CTA supports utilizing CLAs to conduct program operations. The Cybersecurity Coalition and Kaiser Permanente also support utilizing CLAs for managing the day-to-day operations of the IoT Labeling Program. CSA argues that, “the day-to-day administration of the Cyber Trust Mark Program should be managed by a Third-Party Administrator, serving as the entity that grants permission to use the Program trademark to applicants.” In addition, ITI recommends that it should be the responsibility of the CLA to review or audit self-attestations and that “third-party administrators can and should play a key role in administering conformity assessment schemes.” CSA and CTIA further recommend adopting the IoT Labeling NPRM's proposal that a third-party administrator evaluate, accredit, or recognize the CyberLABs, and CSA also “recommends that the Commission hire a third-party administrator to operate the IoT Registry.” Finally, ioXt Alliance recommends that third-party administrators should also “vet companies and products during the certification process” to determine which products pose a threat to national security, based on Commission guidance. ioXt Alliance also notes in its comments that the “label design and associated information should be informed by the expertise of manufacturers and third-party administrators.”

46. Subject to Commission oversight, and consistent with recommendations in the record, the CLAs will evaluate and grant or deny requests for authority to use the FCC IoT Label on consumer IoT products in accordance with the IoT Labeling Program. Each administrator will be responsible for certifying that the consumer IoT products for which it authorizes a manufacturer to apply the FCC IoT Label are tested by an accredited testing lab, which as discussed further below may be a CyberLAB, the applicant's own in-house lab, or a CLA-run lab, and that the testing report demonstrates the product conforms to all Commission IoT labeling rules. The CLA will track each application it receives requesting authority to use the FCC IoT Label, and the disposition of all applications, including date of filing, date of acceptance as complete, the date and reason application is returned to applicant, and date of grant or denial. The CLAs will review each application they receive to ensure the application and supporting documents are provided and are sufficient to show the product conforms to all Commission rules and that it includes a compliance test report generated by an accredited and Lead Administrator-recognized testing lab ( e.g., third-party lab (CyberLAB), applicant's in-house testing lab, or CLA-run lab). If the application is deficient, it will not be granted until all necessary conditions are satisfied. If the application is complete and meets all of the Commission's requirements, the CLA will issue a cybersecurity labeling authorization ( i.e., cybersecurity certification) approving the applicant to affix the FCC IoT Label to the identified product.

47. In addition to its role as a CLA, the Lead Administrator must collaborate with CLAs and other stakeholders ( e.g., cyber experts from industry, government, and academia) as appropriate to develop or identify, and maintain, consumer IoT cybersecurity technical and conformity assessment standards to be met for each class of IoT product seeking authority to affix the FCC IoT Label on their product, which the Lead Administrator will submit to PSHSB for consideration and approval and, subject to any required public notice and comment, adoption into its rules. Adopting standards through consensus is supported by the record in this proceeding. [ 8 ] The Information Technology Industry Counsel (ITI) supports the Commission retaining ownership of the IoT Labeling Program and authorizing the “various industry-led, consensus standards, which can be used to gain approval for the Cyber Trust Mark.” ITI also notes that using industry-led, consensus standards will also limit the likelihood of legal challenges. UL Standards & Engagement Start Printed Page 61252 agrees that the FCC should use a “voluntary consensus-based standards development process” to create and update standards for the IoT Labeling Program. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also supports a consensus-based approach urging the Commission “to track closely with public-private developments in IoT cybersecurity as well as industry-driven initiatives, such as the C2 Consensus on IoT Device Security Baseline Capabilities (C2 Consensus) and CTIA's cybersecurity certification program for IoT devices.” The Council to Secure the Digital Economy (CSDE), which is “composed of USTelecom, the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), and 13 global information and communications technology (ICT) companies—has also already convened technical experts from 19 leading organizations throughout the ICT sector to develop and advance industry consensus on baseline security capabilities for new devices,” including the C2 Consensus document, which provides guidance to the public and private sectors on IoT devices security. We agree with these recommendations that the Commission adopt standards following recommendations based on an industry-led consensus process, leveraging standards work already in process or completed, which will provide for the swift development and implementation of the IoT Labeling Program.

48. The Lead Administrator is to base the recommended technical standards and testing procedures on the NISTIR 8425, Profile of the IoT Core Baseline for Consumer IoT Products. As noted by ITI, there is “a suite of existing standards that might be leveraged to ensure that the outcomes NIST outlines can be met.” In addition, NIST's IoT Product Component Requirements Essay provides a summary of standards and guidance that NIST has initially identified as applicable to IoT devices and IoT product components, that the Lead Administrator may determine are applicable to the IoT Labeling Program. The Lead Administrator should evaluate and leverage existing work for efficiency and speed to market where appropriate in making its recommendations to the Commission.

49. The Lead Administrator in collaboration with stakeholders as appropriate will identify or develop IoT cybersecurity standards (or packages of standards) and testing procedures that they determine can be used to test that a product meets the NISTIR 8425 criteria for each class of products identified by the working group. The Lead Administrator will submit to the Bureau recommendations on a rolling basis as they are identified, but shall submit the initial set of recommendations no later than 90-days after release of the Public Notice selecting the Lead Administrator. We specify a timeframe here to ensure timeliness of initial standards and prompt launch of the program. Noting the work already ongoing on these issues, we also find such a timeframe to be reasonably achievable. The proposed standards (or packages of standards) and testing procedures must be approved by the Commission prior to implementation. The Commission delegates authority to PSHSB to evaluate and (after any required public notice and comment) approve (or not approve) the technical standards and testing procedures proposed by the Lead Administrator for use in the IoT Labeling Program and incorporate the approved standards and testing procedures by reference into the Commission's rules. The Commission further directs the Bureau to ensure the standards and testing procedures are relevant and appropriate to support the Commission's IoT Labeling Program.

50. Selecting CLAs. Each entity seeking authority to act as a CLA must file an application with the Commission for consideration by PSHSB, [ 9 ] which includes a description of its organization structure, an explanation of how it will avoid personal and organizational conflict when processing applications, a description of its processes for evaluating applications seeking authority to use the FCC IoT Label, and a demonstration of expertise that will be necessary to effectively serve as a CLA including, but not limited to:

1. Cybersecurity expertise and capabilities in addition to industry knowledge of IoT and IoT labeling requirements.

2. Expert knowledge of NIST's cybersecurity guidance, including but not limited to NIST's recommended criteria and labeling program approaches for cybersecurity labeling of consumer IoT products.

3. Expert knowledge of FCC rules and procedures associated with product compliance testing and certification.

4. Knowledge of Federal law and guidance governing the security and privacy of agency information systems.

5. Demonstration of ability to securely handle large volumes of information and demonstration of internal security practices.

6. Accreditation pursuant to all the requirements associated with ISO/IEC 17065 with the appropriate scope. [ 10 ] We recognize that CLAs cannot obtain accreditation to the FCC scope until after the Commission adopts standards and testing procedures. As such, the Commission will accept and conditionally approve CLA applications from entities that meet the other FCC program requirements and commit to obtain ISO/IEC 17065 accreditation with the appropriate scope within six (6) months of the effective date by the adopted standards and testing procedures. CLA approval to authorize use of the FCC IoT Label will be finalized upon receipt and demonstration to the Commission of ISO/IEC 17065 accreditation with the appropriate scope. [ 11 ]

7. Demonstrate implementation of controls to eliminate actual or potential conflicts of interests (including both personal and organizational), particularly with regard to commercially sensitive information, to include but not limited to, remaining impartial and unbiased and prevent them from giving preferential treatment to certain applications ( e.g., application line jumping) and from implementing heightened scrutiny of applications from entities not members or otherwise aligned with the CLA.

8. That the applicant is not owned or controlled by or affiliated with any entity identified on the Commission's Covered List or is otherwise prohibited from participating in the IoT Labeling Program. We will dismiss all CLA applications from an entity (company) identified on the Commission's Covered List, the Department of Commerce's Entity List, and the Department of Defense's List of Chinese Military Companies.

9. That the applicant is not owned or controlled by or affiliated with any person or entity that has been suspended or debarred from receiving Start Printed Page 61253 Federal procurements or financial awards, to include all entities and individuals published as ineligible for award on the General Service Administration's System for Award Management.

10. In addition to completing the CLA application information, entities seeking to be the Lead Administrator will submit a description of how they will execute the duties of the Lead Administrator, including:

a. their previous experience in IoT cybersecurity;

b. what role, if any, they have played in IoT labeling;

c. their capacity to execute the Lead Administrator duties outlined in the Order;

d. how they would engage and collaborate with stakeholders to identify or develop the Bureau recommendations discussed in the Order;

e. a proposed consumer education campaign; and

f. additional information the applicant believes demonstrates why they should be the Lead Administrator.

51. For items #7 and #8, we note that the record raises national security considerations when selecting a Label Administrator. For example, CTIA urges that the Commission “exclude all entities on the Covered List (not just those included on the list for producing equipment), all entities on the other lists identified in the IoT Labeling NPRM, as well as entities that are otherwise banned from federal procurement.” CTIA explains that these broad exclusions for program participation are necessary because of “the unique nature of the proposed labeling program—namely that it is both government-administered and voluntary—counsels in favor of painting with a broad brush on national security-based exclusions.” We agree with the commenters in the record, and consistent with our reasoning herein addressing the exclusion of certain products that would raise potential national security concerns, we also prohibit entities owned or controlled by or affiliated with entities that produce equipment found on the Covered List, as well as entities specified on the other lists referenced above or those suspended or debarred from receiving Federal procurements or financial awards from being a CLA in view of national security considerations and to insure the integrity of the IoT Labeling Program. Each of these lists represent the determination of relevant Federal agencies that the entities on the list may pose a national security threat within their respective areas, and as such we find that it is not in the public interest to permit these entities to provide assurances to the American public that products meet minimum cybersecurity standards. Importantly, we are only excluding the entities of the lists from a voluntary program under which the FCC approves their capability to oversee cybersecurity certification testing for purposes of the IoT Label. Insofar as the FCC IoT Label reflects the FCC's signal to consumers about cybersecurity, it is reasonable for us to take a cautious approach when approving entities to conduct the underlying product evaluations when relevant Federal agencies have expressed security concerns with the entity.

52. NCTA—The Internet & Television Association (NCTA) also suggests that “any `foreign entity of concern' as defined by the CHIPS Act should be ineligible for certification or recognition as a CyberLAB.” Further, ioXt Alliance recommends that the Commission “establish rules to ensure CyberLABs are not subject to undue influence by foreign adversaries.” We agree that it would be problematic for the U.S. to rely on the determination of entities controlled or affiliated with “foreign adversaries” as to the security of products approved to use the Cyber Trust Mark, and therefore the FCC will not recognize for purposes of the IoT Labeling Program any applicant that is an entity, its affiliate, or subsidiary owned or controlled by a “foreign adversary” country. A “foreign adversary” country is defined in the Department of Commerce's rule, 15 CFR 7.4 , and includes China (including Hong Kong), Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Maduro Regime. We do not otherwise see a basis to preclude other foreign entities from serving as CLAs, but at this preliminary stage of establishing the IoT Labeling Program—where no international agreements are yet in place in this regard, and oversight details continue to be effectuated—we defer action in this regard. We delegate authority to PSHSB, in consultation with the Office of International Affairs (OIA), to evaluate and (after any appropriate public notice and comment) establish qualification criteria for any entity outside the United States to be approved to act as a CLA once any appropriate international agreements or other appropriate prerequisites are in place.

53. We decline to require that a CLA be a non-profit. The Cybersecurity Coalition recommends that the CLA be a non-profit entity, but did not elaborate on why, focusing their comments on having a neutral, independent third-party that followed consistent pricing guidelines and had industry experience and strong security practices. Researchers from the Northeastern University's College of Engineering similarly agreed that the Label Administrator should be a non-profit while emphasizing that the CLA should not have conflicts of interest. We decline, however, to require that the CLA be a non-profit organization, recognizing that there may be well-qualified companies that may be for-profit organizations or non-profit organizations that possess the other relevant qualifications. We agree with what appear to be the underlying concerns of the record, that the CLA be neutral, have the knowledge outlined above ( e.g., knowledge regarding FCC rules, IoT cybersecurity standards and testing procedures), and be free of conflicts. However, we believe that a company that satisfies the above requirements could carry out the CLA duties without being a non-profit organization. Moreover, expanding the pool of potential participants should increase the likelihood that a reasonable number of qualified entities apply to fulfill the specified roles. In addition, the record did not highlight reasons why a for-profit company would be incapable of fulfilling the role of label administrator.

54. Termination of CLA Authority. To address national security concerns, the authority of CLAs to grant applications to use the FCC IoT Label under the IoT Labeling Program will automatically terminate if the CLA subsequently becomes owned or controlled by or affiliated with an entity that produces equipment found on the Covered List, or otherwise added to any exclusionary list identified in this item as precluding authorization as a CLA. In addition, a CLA's authority may also be terminated for failure to uphold the required competencies or accreditations enumerated above. We delegate authority to PSHSB, to determine if a CLA's authority is to be terminated in the latter circumstance, and to terminate such authorization. [ 12 ] PSHSB, may identify such CLA deficiencies itself or receive notice from other entities, including other agencies, consumers, Start Printed Page 61254 and industry, that products granted authorization by a CLA do not accurately reflect the security posture of the product. Products authorized to use the FCC IoT Label by a disqualified CLA will be subject to the disqualification procedures described further below.

55. CLA Application Filing Window. We delegate authority to the Bureau to issue a Public Notice opening the initial filing window to receive applications from entities seeking authority to be recognized as a CLA (and Lead Administrator) under the IoT Labeling Program with instructions on how to apply and further details on the qualifications required of CLA applicants as well as the decision criteria used to select applicants. We also delegate to the Bureau authority to open additional filing windows or otherwise accept additional applications for authority to be recognized by the Bureau as a CLA when and as the Bureau determines it is necessary. Interested parties must establish they meet the requirements established in the Order. The Commission notes that it may refer applications to the U.S. Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the U.S. Telecommunications Sector (Team Telecom) for their review and consideration of national security and law-enforcement risks. We further delegate authority to PSHSB in coordination with the Office of the Managing Director (OMD) (specifically Office of the Chief Information Officer) and, to the extent necessary, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) (specifically the Senior Agency Official for Privacy), to receive and review each application for compliance with the criteria established in the Order. We also delegate to PSHSB authority to adopt additional criteria and administrative procedures necessary to efficiently select one or more independent, non-governmental entities, to act as CLA(s) and Lead Administrator. The Lead Administrator must provide equitable recommendations to the Commission to encourage the broadest possible participation of CLAs within the parameters of the FCC's rules. [ 13 ] We also delegate to PSHSB authority to adopt additional criteria and procedures in the event the Lead Administrator must be replaced or chooses to withdraw from its responsibilities. [ 14 ] We delegate authority to PSHSB to release a Public Notice announcing the CLA(s) selected by the Bureau and next steps for each entity, including but not limited the execution of appropriate documentation governing the details of the CLA's responsibilities. Moreover, we delegate to PSHSB and OMD authority to take any necessary steps, including adoption of additional procedures and any applicable fees after selection of the CLAs, if necessary to ensure compliance with the Communications Act or applicable government-wide statutes that are implicated by the IoT Labeling Program. Finally, we also delegate authority to PSHSB and OMD, in consultation with OGC, to take any additional actions necessary to preserve the Commission's rights to the Cyber Trust Mark under trademark and other applicable laws. Only entities who have followed the procedures required by PSHSB and OMD and executed relevant required documentation will be authorized by the Commission to accept and grant applications authorizing the use of the FCC IoT Label, which includes the Cyber Trust Mark and QR Code.

56. The Commission envisioned the role of CyberLABs as assessing IoT devices or products for compliance against IoT security standards, once developed. The Commission sought comment on whether the Commission or one of the authorized label administrators would evaluate, accredit, or recognize the CyberLABs, noting that it was seeking to ensure that CyberLABs have the necessary expertise and resources to properly test and assess whether IoT devices and products are in compliance with the IoT security standards. To become accredited and FCC-recognized for the proposed IoT Labeling Program, the Commission proposed the submission of applications demonstrating the applicant CyberLAB met the following requirements:

• Qualifications: The CyberLAB has technical expertise in cybersecurity testing and conformity assessment of IoT devices and products.
• Resources: The CyberLAB has the necessary equipment, facilities, and personnel to conduct cybersecurity testing and conformity assessment of IoT devices and products.
• Procedures: The CyberLAB has documented procedures for conformity assessment.
• Continued competence: Once accredited and recognized, CyberLABs would be periodically audited and reviewed to ensure they continue to comply with the IoT security standards and testing procedures.

57. We adopt our proposal to accept CyberLABs, in-house labs, and CLA-run labs, to test and assess IoT products for compliance with the consumer IoT standards that are established pursuant to the process described above to actualize the outcome of the NIST criteria. Rather than having the Commission or CLA evaluate or accredit a lab, however, we are persuaded that it is appropriate to recognize testing labs that have been accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 standards to conduct compliance testing that would support an application for authority to affix the FCC IoT Label. Consistent with standard practice for accreditation, the organization accrediting the testing labs must be recognized by the Bureau to perform such accreditation based on International Standard ISO/IEC 17011. We recognize that labs cannot be accredited or recognized in the context of this IoT Labeling Program until after the IoT cybersecurity standards have been approved by the Commission and incorporated into the Commission's rules. We delegate authority to PSHSB to publish a Public Notice, subject to any required notice and comment, outlining the specific standards CyberLABs, in-house labs, and CLA-run labs must meet to be recognized as qualified to conduct conformity testing to support applications seeking authority to use the FCC IoT Label. We also find it to be in the public interest for the Lead Administrator to review and recognize labs that meet these accreditation requirements and make a list of recognized labs publicly available. [ 15 ]

58. The Order agrees with CTIA that entities specializing in testing and certification will be valuable to program participants, and that such entities are likely to have the resources and expertise to evaluate IoT products in accordance with a standard. CTIA also notes, “a third-party certification model will help to lend credibility to the program” because CyberLABs can focus on the assessment aspects of the program in a way that helps ensure the Start Printed Page 61255 integrity of the IoT Labeling Program. The Order also agrees with CTA that leveraging accredited industry bodies to perform conformity assessments will “speed the establishment of the program and increase the program's ultimate quality.”

59. We agree with CSA's argument that the Commission should adopt a model where CyberLABs must be ISO/IEC 17025 accredited. CSA notes its confusion as to whether CyberLABs were intended to be “certification bodies” as defined by ISO/IEC 17065 or “evaluation laboratories” as defined by ISO/IEC 17025. We clarify that the proposal as envisioned by the IoT Labeling NPRM and adopted here is for CyberLABs, in-house labs, and CLA-run labs to function as a body responsible for assessing the security of IoT products ( i.e., testing lab). CSA proposes that such bodies hold ISO/IEC 17025 accreditations, as this model has been the basis for mutual recognition agreements in the cybersecurity industry, and we agree.

60. We note the objection of LG Electronics, which asserts that “[t]he CyberLAB concept described in the NPRM would almost certainly create a testing bottleneck” that would slow the process, and deter participation in the IoT Labeling Program. Instead, LG Electronics argues, self-certification is required to avoid these problems, although LG Electronics concedes that some compliance certification is required to participate in the IoT Labeling Program. As a nascent program, and as discussed above in connection with the envisioned process, we do not find it appropriate to adopt at this time a labeling path that does not include some level of laboratory testing in combination with an application to a CLA to ensure the product bearing the FCC IoT Label complies with the IoT Labeling Program's requirements. However, we recognize the benefits of time, efficiency and cost-savings associated with in-house testing and will allow the option for applicants to use an in-house testing labs, provided the lab is ISO/IEC 17025 accredited.

61. CyberLABs' Programmatic Role. CyberLABs will receive requests for conformance testing from manufacturers seeking to use the FCC IoT Label and will assess and test the products using the cybersecurity standards developed by industry and approved by the Commission and provide the applicant with a report of their findings. There was confusion in the record with how the term CyberLAB is to be applied. The Commission clarifies that the CyberLABs are laboratories whose role is limited to conducting compliance tests and generating reports. CyberLABs are not, in the organizational structure adopted in the Order, either certifying products or issuing authorization to use the FCC IoT Label. While the IoT Labeling NPRM defined a CyberLAB as an “authorization body” we remove that reference here as the term “authorization body” might be seen as referring to certification bodies, not laboratories. The role of CyberLABs is to conduct the required tests and generate test reports for use by the applicant in seeking CLA authorization to use the FCC IoT Label.

62. In-House Testing Lab. We also adopt an option for manufacturers to use an accredited and Lead Administrator-recognized in-house testing lab to perform the cybersecurity conformity testing for their IoT products, provided the in-house lab meets the same vigorous standards as the CyberLABs. In the IoT Labeling NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether there is an avenue for “a comprehensive review that an IoT device or product compl[ies] with the IoT security standards.” We received significant support in the record for an in-house testing option. Samsung argues that, to encourage widespread adoption, the Commission must allow manufacturers an option to perform in-house testing to receive the label. The Cybersecurity Coalition urges the Commission to allow for in-house testing. We agree that an in-house testing option, for some manufacturers, will be more cost-effective, encourage participation in the IoT Labeling Program, and when combined with the filing of an application with a CLA can assure quality and trust in the IoT Labeling Program. However, we do require that in-house labs meet the same accreditation and recognition requirements as CyberLABs. In this respect, consumers may be assured that the label achieved on an in-house basis meets the same standards as those tested elsewhere, promoting consistency and reliance on the IoT Labeling Program generally. We also expect that ensuring a common baseline testing standard will ultimately aid in the ability to gain international recognition of the Cyber Trust Mark.

63. CLA-Run Testing Lab. We also recognize that CLAs may also have, or seek to have, their own in-house labs conduct conformity testing for applicants seeking certification to use the Mark. The Commission finds no need to limit the number of potential testing facilities by prohibiting CLA-run labs from also being considered recognized labs. Applicants who wish to do so, may file an application with an authorized CLA and request the services of the CLA's accredited and Lead Administrator-recognized lab. Again, the Commission requires CLA labs to meet the same accreditation and recognition requirements as CyberLABs. Only after a lab has been accredited by a recognized accreditation body may the lab file an application with the Lead Administrator seeking to be recognized as an approved cybersecurity testing lab. [ 16 ] As explained by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), “[a]ccreditation is a means of determining the technical competence of conformity assessment organizations such as laboratories using qualified, third-party accreditation bodies. It assures federal government agencies as well as private sector organizations that assessments conducted by accreditation bodies are objective and reliable and that one can have confidence in the data generated by the accredited testing laboratory.” Recognizing that, whether an IoT product is evaluated by a CyberLAB, CLA-run lab, or an in-house lab there is a need to ensure equal rigor in the process, this requirement applies to in-house testing labs and third-party testing labs (CyberLABs and CLA-run labs). For ease of understanding, when we refer to CyberLABs below, we are including CyberLABs, in-house testing labs, and CLA-run labs.

64. In order to achieve recognition by the Lead Administrator, all labs seeking recognition under the Commission's IoT Labeling Program must submit evidence of accreditation in the form of an attestation from an accreditation body that the prospective lab has demonstrated:

1. Technical expertise in cybersecurity testing and conformity assessment of IoT devices and products. Compliance with all requirements associated with ISO/IEC 17025. If we determine that other ISO standards or other relevant requirements are missing, the Commission will provide guidance to industry on how they may be addressed. Start Printed Page 61256

2. Knowledge of FCC rules and procedures associated with IoT cybersecurity compliance testing and certification.

3. Necessary equipment, facilities, and personnel to conduct cybersecurity testing and conformity assessment of IoT devices and products.

4. Documented procedures for IoT cybersecurity conformity assessment.

5. Demonstrated implementation of controls to eliminate actual or potential conflicts of interests (including both personal and organizational), particularly with regard to commercially sensitive information.

6. That the applicant is not owned or controlled by or affiliated with any entity that produces equipment on the FCC Covered List or is otherwise prohibited from participating in the IoT Labeling Program. We will dismiss all applications from a company named on the Department of Commerce's Entity List, the Department of Defense's List of Chinese Military Companies.

7. That the applicant is not owned or controlled by or affiliated with any person or entity that has been suspended or debarred from receiving Federal procurements or financial awards, to include all entities and individuals published as ineligible for award on the General Service Administration's System for Award Management.

65. Once accredited and recognized, the lab will be periodically audited and reviewed by the Lead Administrator to ensure they continue to comply with the IoT security standards and testing procedures.

66. Concerning items #6 and #7, national security considerations must be considered when allowing testing labs to participate because of “the unique nature of the proposed labeling program.” As recommended in the record and consistent with our exclusions as to eligible products and eligibility to serve as a third-party administrator, all entities owned or controlled by or affiliated with entities that produce equipment found on the Covered List, as well as entities specified on the other U.S. Government exclusionary lists referenced above are prohibited from serving as a CyberLAB. Each of these lists represent the determination of relevant Federal agencies that the entities on the list may pose a national security threat within their respective areas, and as such we find that we cannot give U.S. Government endorsement to their security testing while claiming they pose such a threat. Insofar as the label reflects the FCC's signal to consumers about cybersecurity, it is reasonable for the FCC to take a cautious approach especially for those products for which relevant Federal agencies have expressed other security concerns with the testing lab.

67. NCTA also suggests also suggests that “any `foreign entity of concern' as defined by the CHIPS Act should be ineligible for certification or recognition as a CyberLAB.” Further, ioXt Alliance recommends that the Commission “establish rules to ensure CyberLABs are not subject to undue influence by foreign adversaries.” We agree that it would be problematic for the U.S. to rely on the determination of entities controlled or affiliated with “foreign adversaries” as to the security of products approved to use the Cyber Trust Mark, and therefore the Lead Administrator will not recognize for purposes of the IoT Labeling Program any testing lab that is an entity, its affiliate, or subsidiary owned or controlled by a “foreign adversary” country. A “foreign adversary” country is defined in the Department of Commerce's rule, 15 CFR 7.4 , and includes China (including Hong Kong), Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Maduro Regime. Because of the role CLAs will play in the labeling program, we find that the concerns related to entities identified as “foreign adversaries” are equally applicable to entities acting as CLAs as they are testing labs. To avoid these issues, the record suggests requiring testing labs certify compliance with the Commission's rules, including the rules pertaining to the Covered List. Accordingly, we find it appropriate that each testing lab must certify to the truth and accuracy of all information included in its recognition application and immediately update the information if the information changes.

68. The Order notes that Garmin advocates even stricter measures on the testing labs, suggesting that the labs be “located in the U.S.” We decline to require physical location within the U.S. to avoid “unnecessarily limiting the pool of legitimate CyberLABs approved to conduct testing and conformity assessment for the Mark.” Further, the record indicates that this stricter approach “would vastly diminish manufacturers' abilities to select and access evaluation labs, conduct proper risk management and promote competition and diversity in the lab market.” Such a restriction might also unduly limit the ability of legitimate foreign corporations that do not raise national security concerns to participate in the IoT Labeling Program to the detriment of the goal of elevating the cybersecurity posture of those IoT devices sold in the U.S. and to promote international recognition of the Cyber Trust Mark. We delegate authority to the Bureau to adopt any additional criteria or procedures necessary with respect to labs located outside of the United States.

69. Terminating CyberLAB Testing Authority. To address national security concerns, the CyberLAB recognition afforded to entities under this IoT Labeling Program will be automatically terminated for entities that subsequently become affiliated with an entity that is owned or controlled by or affiliated with entities that produce equipment placed on the Covered List, or that are otherwise added to any exclusionary list identified in this item as precluding authorization as a CyberLAB. CyberLAB testing authority may also be terminated for failure to uphold the required competencies or accreditations enumerated above. We delegate authority to the Bureau to determine when a CyberLAB's authority is to be terminated, and to terminate such authorization. [ 17 ] The Bureau may identify such deficiencies itself or receive notice from other entities, including other agencies, consumers, and industry, that products tested by a CyberLAB do not accurately reflect the security posture of the product. Products authorized to use the FCC IoT Label by a disqualified CyberLAB will be subject to the disqualification procedures described further below.

70. Fees. To fulfill their role, as envisioned by the IoT Labeling NPRM, we authorize CyberLABs to charge reasonable fees to conduct the tasks adopted in the Order. The IoT Labeling NPRM proposed a fee calculation methodology adopted by the Commission in the 2020 Application Fee Report and Order, 86 FR 15026 (March 19, 2021), and sought comment on whether any oversight is needed by the Commission over such charges. We did not receive any comments on the suitability of the approach proposed in the IoT Labeling NPRM or detailed comments about the degree of oversight the Commission should conduct over Start Printed Page 61257 the charges. We recognize the Cybersecurity Coalition's comments that high fees would deter participation in the IoT Labeling Program. We anticipate that there will be multiple CyberLABs authorized through the approach adopted in the Order, and we believe that market competition will ensure fees are reasonable, competitive, and accessible while covering the costs incurred by the CyberLABs in performing their designated tasks. We believe this addresses the concerns raised by the Cybersecurity Coalition and renders the approach proposed in the IoT Labeling NPRM unnecessary. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) rightly indicates, however, that the fee structure for CyberLABs will necessitate “robust protections to ensure that CyberLABs focus on the underlying mission of protecting the public rather than boosting their revenues.” We delegate to the Bureau, in connection with OMD, to review and reconsider if necessary whether the level and structure of the fees should be regulated by the Commission.

71. The Commission adopts a two-step process for a manufacturer seeking authority to use the FCC IoT Label, which includes (1) product testing by an accredited and Lead Administrator-recognized lab ( e.g., CyberLAB, CLA lab, or an in-house lab) and (2) product label certification by a CLA. In the context of this IoT Labeling Program and as discussed in detail below, we find that in order to ensure the integrity of this nascent program, that the FCC IoT Label certification process will include a two-step process involving (1) the use of an accredited and Lead Administrator-recognized laboratory (CyberLAB, CLA lab, or in-house lab) to test the IoT product for compliance to FCC rules and generate a test report; and (2) an application to an FCC-recognized CLA ( i.e., an accredited certification body) to certify the product as fully compliant with all relevant FCC IoT Labeling Program rules.

72. The record is split on the processes the Commission should adopt for manufacturers to follow when seeking to use the FCC IoT Label, specifically with regard to whether it is necessary for a third-party to review and verify the product meets all of the IoT Labeling Program requirements, including product testing, or if the manufacturer should be afforded the opportunity to “self-declare” compliance and affix the FCC IoT Label without third-party verification.

73. UL Solutions, TÜV SÜD, and TIC Council Americas recommend that the Commission require all applications to be supported by conformity testing conducted by an accredited lab ( e.g., ISO/IEC 17025 accredited), and submitted to a third-party for verification of compliance with the Commission's program requirements. Others argue the Commission should accept a declaration of conformity or self-certification, while others recommend the Commission enter into agreements with each manufacturer to allow the manufacturer to conduct internal conformity testing of its products and self-certify compliance with the Commission's program requirements resulting in approval to use the Cyber Trust Mark without third-party involvement. CTA, for example, contemplates a “Manufacturer Self-Attestation Process” where manufacturers apply to the Commission for access to a “Mark Self-Attestation License Agreement” between the manufacturer and the FCC. Under this process, the manufacturer provides documentation showing how it complies with the NIST Criteria and if the Commission agrees with the documentation, the parties execute the agreement. The license agreement will identify the limits of the manufacturer's license authority, which may be corporate-wide, on a divisional basis, or for a specific product line.

74. To ensure the Cyber Trust Mark retains the highest level of integrity and consumer trust, we agree with commenters who caution against allowing testing by entities that are not accredited and recognized. We also agree with Garmin and AHAM, who recommend third-party verification of the information contained in a manufacturer's application to use the Cyber Trust Mark. UL Solutions notes that while the Commission's equipment authorization process allows some products that pose a low risk of RF interference to be approved via a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC), there is no clear line to be drawn between low risk and high risk connected products when “IoT devices are significant targets for an ever- growing number of cybersecurity attacks.” In addition, UL Solutions points to the investigation conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) into the ENERGY STAR program's initial reliance a supplier's declaration of conformity, which GAO found to be unreliable because GAO was able to obtain UL certification with blatantly non-conforming products.

75. The Commission disagrees with commenters who believe the IoT Labeling Program should offer different methods of conformity assessment based on varying levels of risk and potential impact on consumers because doing so adds an unnecessary and significant layer of complexity to the process. The Commission recognizes the view of Keysight, the National Electronic Manufacturers Association (NEMA), AIM, Whirlpool, AHAM, Consumer Reports, Garmin, NAM, ITI, and TIC Council Americas, who support self-attestation as an efficient and cost effective methodology for applicants to conduct conformity assessments. However, the Commission agrees with A2LA, which urges caution with self-attestations of conformity “due to the bias inherent in self-declaration.” We also take into serious consideration the 2010 GAO Report that found the ENERGY STAR program in effect at that time, which was “primarily a self-certification program relying on corporate honesty and industry self-policing to protect the integrity of the Energy Star label,” failed to require upfront third-party validation of manufacturers' self-reported claims of compliance with the program requirements, which resulted in the certification of bogus products as ENERGY STAR compliant. ENERGY STAR has since changed the manner in which it certifies products as ENERGY STAR compliant, stating that in order “[t]o ensure consumer confidence in the ENERGY STAR label and to protect the investment of ENERGY STAR partners, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires all ENERGY STAR products to be third-party certified. Products are tested in an EPA-recognized laboratory and reviewed by an EPA-recognized certification body before they can carry the label.”

76. As such, in light of the nascent nature of the IoT Labeling Program, lessons learned in the ENERGY STAR context, and the need to ensure that the Cyber Trust Mark garners sufficient trust by consumers to be viewed as providing accurate information and manufacturer participation, we find that allowing a path to “self-attestation” is not appropriate at this time. While such a path may provide for prompt time to market for the Cyber Trust Mark itself, the concerns regarding the Mark's integrity at this initial stage counsel against “self attestation.” Moreover, we anticipate that the benefits and level of efficiency afforded manufacturers by the ability to use in-house labs will mitigate the additional process associated with certification by a CLA, as discussed below.

77. We intend for the Cyber Trust Mark to serve as a reliable and trusted Start Printed Page 61258 way for consumers to quickly identify those products that meet the Commission's program requirements. To achieve this, the Commission must adopt sufficient controls over the IoT Labeling Program to ensure only those products that meet the Commission's requirements bear the Cyber Trust Mark. The Commission's second step of requiring an application be submitted to a CLA is a significant and important control to ensure that an independent disinterested third-party outside the manufacturer's control has reviewed the manufacturer's product application and supporting test report and verified that the product complies with the Commission's program requirements.

78. The second step of the application process is particularly important because, as discussed above, the Commission allows the first step (testing) to be completed by an accredited and recognized CyberLAB, a CLA lab, or the manufacturer's in-house lab. Requiring the manufacturer to submit an application with a CLA is an important control, particularly to ensure that all products, including those products whose conformity testing is conducted, and reports are generated, by the manufacturer's in-house lab, are subject to third-party scrutiny and oversight. As such, the Commission requires all entities seeking to use the FCC IoT Label must submit an application for authority to a CLA to use the FCC IoT Label that is supported by the appropriate report detailing the conformity testing conducted by a lab that is both accredited and Lead Administrator-recognized (CyberLAB, CLA lab, or manufacturer's in-house lab). Only entities who have received prior authorization from a CLA ( i.e., cybersecurity certification) are authorized to use the FCC IoT Label, which will ensure the IoT Labeling Program retains its integrity. [ 18 ] We further recognize that the CLA may charge a reasonable fee to cover the cost of reviewing the application and the costs of conducting the other tasks the CLA would perform. Once the IoT Labeling Program is established, we may revisit the issue of whether to adopt additional pathways to obtaining authority to use the FCC IoT Label.

79. The IoT Labeling NPRM sought comment on whether and how one or more third-party administrators should be utilized to manage the IoT Labeling Program, and whether the Commission should designate one or more administrators to authorize use of the label. Kaiser Permanente argues that the Commission should maintain ownership of the application process, as well as oversight and supervision of third parties administering the IoT Labeling Program. Garmin notes that the application process described in the IoT Labeling NPRM is unclear and worries that third-party involvement would require enormous effort, and cautioned that sharing sensitive information with a third-party administrator itself raises security concerns. However, the record was silent with respect to details about an application process. We agree that oversight and supervision of the IoT Labeling Program, including intaking applications, will require effort but believe a CLA is in the best position to streamline that process and, as noted, ensure the integrity of the process. We will require the CLA to have the ability to securely handle large volumes of information, which we believe should alleviate Garmin's concern. We outline the application process to use the FCC IoT Label below.

80. Before being able to display the Cyber Trust Mark, the applicant must determine their product is an eligible product under our rules; have their product tested by an accredited and Lead Administrator-recognized CyberLAB, CLA Lab, or manufacturer's in-house lab; obtain a report of conformity and compliance from the lab; and submit an application for authority to use the FCC IoT Label to an FCC-recognized CLA in accordance with their procedures. Using the CLAs' filing processes, entities seeking authority to use the FCC IoT Label will file an application to be developed by the Bureau. Each application must include a report of conformity issued by an accredited CyberLAB, accredited CLA lab, or accredited in-house lab whose testing and reporting is comparative in rigor to that completed by a CyberLAB. The CLA will review the application and supporting documentation to ensure it is complete and in compliance with the Commission's rules and will either grant or deny the application. If an application is granted, the CLA will provide the applicant with notification of the grant and authority to affix the FCC IoT Label to the product granted authorization.

81. Applications that do not meet the Commission's IoT Labeling Program will be denied by the CLA. If an application is denied, the CLA will provide the applicant with notification of the denial and an explanation of why it was denied. An applicant may only re-submit an application for a denied product if the CLA-identified deficiencies have been corrected. The applicant must indicate on its application that it is re-submitting the application after it was denied, the name of the CLA that denied the application, and the CLA's explanation of why it was denied. Failure to disclose the denial of an application for the same or substantially similar product will result in denial of the application for that product and the FCC will take other regulatory and/or legal action it deems appropriate.

82. Grant or denial of an application for authority to use the FCC IoT Label will be made by the CLA in the first instance. The CLA will return incomplete applications to the applicant or otherwise contact the applicant regarding the incomplete application, as soon as possible.

83. We delegate authority to the Bureau to issue a Public Notice after any necessary notice and public comment and after completing any process required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, providing further details on how to apply for authority to use the FCC IoT Label, including but not limited to informational elements of the application, additional details on filing requirements ( e.g., description or photograph of the label and how/where it will be affixed to the product), and how to request confidential treatment of submitted information. As the Commission anticipated in the NPRM, CLAs may charge reasonable fees for their services and to cover the costs of performing the administrative duties. The IoT Labeling NPRM proposed to follow the fee calculation methodology adopted by the Commission in the 2020 Application Fee Report and Order and requested comment on the proposal and any changes. We did not receive any comments on the suitability of this approach. We recognize the Cybersecurity Coalition's comments that high fees would deter participation in the IoT Labeling Program. We anticipate that there will be multiple administrators authorized through the approach adopted in the Order, and we believe that market competition will ensure fees are reasonable, competitive, and accessible while covering the costs incurred by the CLA in performing their designated tasks. We believe this addresses the concerns raised by the Cybersecurity Coalition and renders the approach proposed in the IoT Labeling NPRM unnecessary. We therefore reject Start Printed Page 61259 the NPRM's proposal. To the extent that the Lead Administrator may incur costs in performing its duties on behalf of the program as a whole, we expect these costs to be shared among CLAs as a whole. [ 19 ] We delegate to the Bureau, in connection with OMD, to consider these issues and provide guidance to the CLAs and Lead Administrator to ensure the fees do not become onerous, as indicated by the record.

84. Seeking Review of CLA Decision. Any party aggrieved by an action taken by a CLA must first seek review from the CLA, which must be filed with the CLA within 60 days from the date of the CLA's decision. A party aggrieved by an action taken by a CLA may, after seeking review by the CLA, seek review from the Commission. A request for Commission review must be filed with the Commission within 60 days from the date the CLA issues a decision on the party's request for review. In all cases of requests for review, the request for review shall be deemed filed on the postmark date. If the postmark date cannot be determined, the applicant must file a sworn affidavit stating the date that the request for review was mailed. Parties must adhere to the time periods for filing oppositions and replies set forth in 47 CFR 1.45 .

85. We delegate authority to PSHSB to consider and act upon requests for review of CLA decisions. Requests for review that raise novel questions of fact, law, or policy will be considered by the full Commission. An affected party may seek review of a decision issued under delegated authority pursuant to the rules set forth in part 1 of the Commission's rules. The Bureau will conduct de novo review of requests for review of decisions issued by a CLA. The Commission will conduct de novo review of requests for review of decisions by the CLA that involve novel questions of fact, law, or policy; provided, however, that the Commission will not conduct de novo review of decisions issued by the Bureau under delegated authority. The Bureau will, within 45 days, take action in response to a request for review of CLA decision that is properly before it. The Bureau may extend the time period for taking action on a request for review of a CLA decision for a period of up to 90 days. The Commission may also at any time, extend the time period for taking action of a request for review of a CLA decision pending before the Bureau. The Commission will issue a written decision in response to a request for review of a CLA decision that involves novel questions of fact, law, or policy within 45 days. The Commission may extend the time period for taking action on the request for review of a CLA decision. The Bureau also may extend action on a request for review of an CLA decision for a period of up to ninety days. While a party seeks review of a CLA decision, they are not authorized to use the FCC IoT Label until the Commission issues a final decision authorizing their use of the FCC IoT Label.

86. Technical Criteria for Consumer IoT Products. We adopt the IoT Labeling NPRM proposal that the NIST Core Baseline serve as the basis of the IoT Labeling Program. The NIST Core Baseline is based on product-focused cybersecurity capabilities (also referred to by NIST as “Outcomes”) rather than specific requirements, which NIST asserts provide the flexibility needed due to the diverse marketplace of IoT products, and we agree. As outlined in the IoT Labeling NPRM, the NIST criteria includes the following IoT product capabilities: (1) asset identification; (2) product configuration; (3) data protection; (4) interface access control; (5) software update; (6) cybersecurity state awareness; and the following IoT Product Developer Activities: (7) documentation; (8) information and query reception; (9) information dissemination; and (10) product education and awareness.

87. The record reflects broad support for adoption of the technical criteria presented in NISTIR 8425. For example, a coalition of industry stakeholders including the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Connectivity Standards Alliance, Consumer Technology Association, CTIA Information Technology, Industry Council, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Plumbing Manufacturers International Power Tool Institute, Security Industry Association, Telecommunications Industry Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and USTelecom submitted a letter to the Commission supporting the establishment of “a voluntary program based on the technical criteria developed by [NIST], under NISTIR 8425.” UL Solutions supports adoption of the NISTIR 8425 criteria and asserts that there are several mature standards that can be drawn from that address the NISTIR 8425 criteria, such as UL 2900, UL 5500, and IEC 62443.

88. CTIA supports adoption of the NIST Core Baseline but urges the Commission not to prescribe any specific methodologies that testing programs or standards must use, other than to require that such programs or standards be consistent with NIST Core Baseline. CSA also supports adoption of the NIST Core Baseline but urges the Commission to refrain from developing its own standards for testing. Rather, CSA asserts that they have developed a certification program that meets the requirements of NISTIR 8425 and other relevant standards documents, including ETSI EN 303 645 and the Singapore Cybersecurity Labeling Scheme, and CTA indicates that they are working on American National Standards (ANS) documents that will “[d]efine a Framework that is a standardized and objective method of applying the Criteria in NISTIR 8425 to a candidate Scheme or to a manufacturer's proposal for self-attestation . . .” Garmin encourages the Commission to consider ETSI 303 645 standards, and commenters American Certification Body, Inc. and Consumer Reports encourage international standards such as those developed as a result of the EU Cyber Resiliency Act and UK's Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act. These commenters did not oppose referencing the NIST criteria.

89. We agree with Infineon, Consumer Reports, and NCTA and adopt NISTIR 8425 as the basis for the Commission's IoT Labeling Program. The consumer IoT environment is complicated by a significant number of different types of consumer IoT products. Adoption of the NIST criteria as the foundation of the IoT Labeling Program will result in a robust consumer IoT program that is sufficiently flexible that it can be applied across all types of consumer IoT products. The NIST criteria were developed through a multi-year effort between NIST and various stakeholders, and includes significant industry input and will continue to be updated by NIST as necessary. The Commission agrees with NIST's publication, which avers that the following NISTIR 8425 criteria identify the cybersecurity capabilities that consumers would expect manufacturers to address within the products they buy. NIST contemplates that most of the criteria concern the IoT product directly and are expected to be satisfied by software and/or hardware implemented in the IoT product (1-6 below) and other criteria apply to the IoT product developer (7-10 below). The following is the list of Start Printed Page 61260 the NIST IoT product capability criteria, NIST's brief description of each, and the NIST-identified cybersecurity utility for each:

(1) Asset Identification: The product can be uniquely identified by the customer and other authorized entities and the product uniquely identifies each IoT product component and maintains an up-todate inventory of connected product components

i. Cybersecurity Utility: The ability to identify IoT products and their components is necessary to support such activities as asset management for updates, data protection, and digital forensics capabilities for incident response.

(2) Product Configuration: The configuration of the IoT product is changeable, with an ability to restore a secure default setting, and changes can only be performed by authorized individuals, services, and other IoT product components.

i. Cybersecurity Utility: The ability to change aspects of how the IoT product functions can help customers tailor the IoT product's functionality to their needs and goals. Customers can configure their IoT products to avoid specific threats and risk they know about based on their risk appetite.

(3) Data Protection: The IoT product protects data store across all IoT product components and transmitted both between IoT product components and outside the IoT product from unauthorized access, disclosure, and modification.

i. Cybersecurity Utility: Maintaining confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data is foundational to cybersecurity for IoT products. Customers will expect that data are protected and that protection of data helps to ensure safe and intended functionality of the IoT product.

(4) Interface Access Control: The IoT product restricts logical access to local and network interfaces—and to protocols and services used by those interfaces—to only authorized individuals, services, and IoT product components.

i. Cybersecurity Utility: Enumerating and controlling access to all internal and external interfaces to the IoT product will help preserve the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the IoT product, its components, and data by helping prevent unauthorized access and modification.

(5) Software Update: The software of all IoT product components can be updated by authorized individuals, services, and other IoT product components only by using a secure and configurable mechanism, as appropriate for each IoT product component.

i. Cybersecurity Utility: Software may have vulnerabilities discovered after the IoT product has been deployed; software update capabilities can help ensure secure delivery of security patches.

(6) Cybersecurity State Awareness: The IoT product supports detection of cybersecurity incidents affecting or affected by IoT product components and the data they store and transmit.

i. Cybersecurity Utility: Protection of data and ensuring proper functionality can be supported by the ability to alert the customer when the device starts operating in unexpected ways, which could mean that unauthorized access is being attempted, malware has been loaded, botnets have been created, device software errors have happened, or other types of actions have occurred that was not initiated by the IoT product user or intended by the developer.

The following is the list of NIST-identified IoT Product Developer Activities/Non-Technical Supporting Capabilities and their NIST-identified cybersecurity utility:

(7) Documentation: The IoT product developer creates, gathers, and stores information relevant to cybersecurity of the IoT product and its product components prior to customer purchase, and throughout the development of a product and its subsequent lifecycle.

i. Cybersecurity Utility: Generating, capturing, and storing important information about the IoT product and its development ( e.g., assessment of the IoT product and development practices used to create and maintain it) can help inform the IoT product developer about the product's actual cybersecurity posture.

(8) Information and Query Reception: The IoT product developer has the ability to receive information relevant to cybersecurity and respond to queries from the customer and others about information relevant to cybersecurity.

i. Cybersecurity Utility: As IoT products are used by customers, those customers may have questions or reports of issues that can help improve the cybersecurity of the IoT product over time.

(9) Information Dissemination: The IoT product developer broadcasts ( e.g., to the public) and distributes ( e.g., to the customer or others in the IoT product ecosystem) information relevant to cybersecurity.

i. Cybersecurity Utility: As the IoT product, its components, threats, and mitigations change, customers will need to be informed about how to securely use the IoT product.

(10) Product Education and Awareness: The IoT product developer creates awareness of and educates customers and others in the IoT product ecosystem about cybersecurity-related information ( e.g., considerations, features) related to the IoT product and its product components.

i. Cybersecurity Utility: Customers will need to be informed about how to securely use the device to lead to the best cybersecurity outcomes for the customers and the consumer IoT product marketplace.

90. Consumer IoT Product Standards. We find that standards are necessary to administer the IoT Labeling Program in a fair and equitable manner and to ensure the products with the FCC IoT Label have all been tested to the same standards to provide consumers with confidence that products bearing the FCC IoT Label include strong cybersecurity. Commenters generally agree with the adoption of standards based on NIST's Core Baseline for Consumer IoT products (NISTIR 8425). We take up the Cybersecurity Coalition's recommendation “that the Commission or a designated third-party administrator work with stakeholders to identify recognized standards that encompass the Core Baseline, or that offer equivalent controls.” NCTA also notes that “Standards Development Organizations (“SDOs”) and specification organizations are well-established organizations that can develop standards aligned with NIST guidelines and the Program's goals.” According to NIST, the NISTIR 8425 “ outcomes are guidelines that describe what is expected . . . but more specific information may be needed to define how to implement IoT products or product components so that they meet an outcome. Requirements define how a component can meet an outcome for a specific use case, context, technology, IoT product component etc. . . ..”

91. We reject CTIA's recommendation that the Commission refrain from adopting specific standards and solely rely on the NIST criteria. Rather, the Commission agrees with NIST and commenters that its criteria are general guidelines that must be further developed into a requirements document ( i.e., standards) and corresponding testing procedures, which will demonstrate how the product bearing the FCC IoT Label has met the NIST criteria and to ensure consistency of application across a class of products. ITI adds that the “Commission need not recreate [existing] work or develop its own standards but can leverage completed standards work for swift development Start Printed Page 61261 and implementation.” The integrity of the Cyber Trust Mark requires the Commission to adopt standards that provide for adequate and consistent testing of products to ensure that all products bearing the FCC IoT Label have demonstrated conformance to the identified standards that the Commission has approved as compliant with the NIST criteria. In addition, for the Commission's IoT Labeling Program to be fairly administered by the multiple CLAs, all products displaying the FCC's label must be tested against the same standards to ensure that all products displaying the FCC IoT Label conform to the Commission's standards.

92. Commenters such as TÜV SÜD agree that “the main requirement when perform[ing] testing for compliance is that the test need[s] to be reliable and always offer the same outcome when a product is tested in the same condition. In the current state of the NIST IoT criteria there is not enough detail[ ] in the standard, so there is the need to write a more detail[ed] test method/standard.” UL Solutions also “supports the use of the NISTIR 8425 criteria as the basis for the IoT Labeling Program. These criteria help establish a minimum security baseline suitable for consumer IoT products . . . However, as noted in paragraphs 27 and 28 [of the IoT Labeling NPRM ], these criteria must be defined by minimum IoT security requirements and standards to enable consistent and replicable product testing.” Moreover, Somos similarly agrees that leveraging existing standards for device definition and security guidelines are the fastest, most effective path to the definition of a secure ecosystem, that NIST 8425 standard is the appropriate starting point, and that “existing standards should allow for the Commission to quickly create its definitions and guidelines.” We agree with the Cybersecurity Coalition that “only those standards and best practices recognized by the labeling program should be eligible, in order to avoid the inclusion of non-credible or irrelevant frameworks that may undermine trust in the label.”

93. We further determine that, given the existing work in this space, the Commission should not undertake the initial development of the standards that underpin the NIST Core Baseline. Rather, as discussed in paragraph 56 above, we direct the Lead Administrator to undertake this task, and delegate authority to the Bureau to review and approve the consumer IoT cybersecurity standards and testing procedures that have been identified and/or developed by the Lead Administrator (after any appropriate public comment) that ensures the product to which a manufacturer seeks to affix the FCC IoT Label conforms to the NIST criteria. NIST's IoT Product Component Requirements Essay provides a summary of standards and guidance that NIST has initially identified as applicable to IoT devices and IoT product components, that the Lead Administrator may determine are applicable to the IoT Labeling Program. Moreover, the Lead Administrator may also determine existing standards or schemes that exist in the market already may be readily adaptable and leverage such work to meet the terms of the program.

94. The Commission recognizes that since a “product” for purposes of the IoT Labeling Program is comprised of at least one IoT device and any additional product components that are necessary to use the IoT device beyond basic operational features, there may be multiple standards ( e.g., a package of standards) applicable to a single IoT product ( e.g., standards applicable to IoT devices; mobile apps; networking equipment included with IoT devices; and cloud platforms). The Commission does not anticipate a single standard would be developed or identified to apply to all consumer IoT products. However, a single package of standards may be developed or identified for each product type or class as identified by the Lead Administrator and reviewed and approved by the Bureau. We also agree with the Cybersecurity Coalition that “participants should have discretion to include security features that go beyond standard requirements . . . So long as the additional security features do not conflict with conformity with the standard used for eligibility by the labeling program participants, participants should be encouraged to go beyond baseline requirements.”

95. We adopt the IoT Labeling NPRM's proposal to implement a single binary label with layering. As discussed in the IoT Labeling NPRM, “under a binary label construct, products will either qualify to carry the label or not qualify ( i.e., not be able to carry the label) and `layers' of the label would include the Commission's Cyber Trust Mark representing that the product or device has met the Commission's baseline consumer IoT cybersecurity standards and a scannable code ( e.g., QR Code) directing the consumer to more detailed information of the particular IoT product.”

96. We adopt a binary label because we believe that a label signaling that an IoT product has met the minimum cybersecurity requirements will be simplest for consumers to understand, especially as the label is introduced to and established for the public. The Cybersecurity Coalition supports a binary label, citing the benefits of a simple, consumer friendly nature and its potential to streamline the purchasing decision for consumers. Similarly, as LG Electronics points out, “[l]ike the ENERGY STAR program, a binary label specifying that a device has met a government standard—in this case for cybersecurity—will be enough to drive consumers and manufacturers toward more secure products,” while leaving manufacturers free to separately provide additional cybersecurity information about their products. And the Connectivity Standards Alliance supports the use of a single binary label with layering, as recommended by NIST, asserting that “[a]cademic studies have validated this approach.” Conversely, Canada advocates a multi-tiered approach to labeling to “lower barriers to entry into the labelling regime and facilitate trade and competition by ensuring Micro, Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (MSMEs), with fewer resources to meet a high level of cybersecurity,” and to “provide the incentives for a greater number of firms to innovate in IoT products and work on `climbing the ladder' of cybersecurity levels over time.” Another commenter suggests a multi-tiered label that would have different colors depending on the length of time the product is supported. Other commenters advocate a multi-tiered approach that need not be reflected in different Cyber Trust Marks, but in different information available when a consumer scans the QR code. A study by Carnegie Mellon University indicates that different types of labels of various complexities have varying levels of effectiveness, but does not contest the idea of a binary label. We also recognize that some international regimes, such as Singapore, use a multi-tiered label.

97. Although one could imagine myriad different approaches to labeling that each have relative advantages and disadvantages, on balance we are persuaded to rely on a binary label as we begin our IoT Labeling Program, consistent with NIST's recommended approach. We agree with the Cybersecurity Coalition that “the primary value of the IoT . . . labeling program is to better enable ordinary consumers to distinguish labeled products as likely providing better basic security than unlabeled products.” We believe a binary label meets this goal by Start Printed Page 61262 providing a clear indication that products with the label meet the Commission's cybersecurity requirements. We anticipate that promoting early consumer recognition of the FCC IoT Label—which we think is better advanced by a binary label—will, in turn, make consumers more attuned to cybersecurity issues and more receptive to additional cybersecurity information that manufacturers elect to provide apart from the FCC IoT Label and associated QR code. Thus, we believe that our use of a binary label still retains incentives for manufacturers to innovate and achieve higher levels of cybersecurity. Our approach to determining what cybersecurity standards will be applied also accommodates the potential for different requirements being necessary to meet the NIST baseline criteria in different contexts. To the extent that any multi-tiered labeling approach contemplated by commenters would allow manufacturers to obtain a label through lesser cybersecurity showings, that would be less effective at achieving the goals of our program. And to the extent that any multi-tiered labeling approach would require manufacturers to make heightened cybersecurity showings to achieve higher-tier labels, that is unlikely to lower barriers to participation in the IoT Labeling Program while also risking less understanding and acceptance of the FCC IoT Label by consumers. Because delay in moving forward with the IoT Labeling Program would have its own costs in pushing back the potential for benefits to consumers and device security, we also recognize the benefits of a binary label as more straightforward to implement, at least at the start of our IoT Labeling Program. Weighing all the relevant considerations, we are persuaded to move forward with a binary label at this time.

98. We require that products bearing the FCC IoT Label, which includes the Cyber Trust Mark, must also include the corresponding QR Code. Approval to use the Cyber Trust Mark is conditioned on the label also bearing the QR Code in accordance with the IoT Labeling Program's label standards. In addition, the FCC IoT Label must be easily visible to consumers ( e.g., on product packaging). This approach received considerable support in the record. We agree with USTelecom that “consumers should not have to open the package to get information because that could impact their ability to return the product.” Power Tool Institute, Inc. concurs that “[p]lacing a QR Code on the packaging is preferable to placing it on the device.” Notable pros of using a QR Code are providing “consumers with detailed information about a device or product,” enhancing the program's objective by providing real-time updates. However, some commenters raise concerns with the placement of the QR Code on the product packaging. Logitech urges the Commission to not require a QR Code in conjunction with the label, stating that it could crowd packaging, cause consumer confusion, and may cause confusion if retailers scan the wrong barcode when checking out a customer. We believe that as the label becomes established and recognized by consumers and retailers, the benefit of providing a QR Code linking to a registry populated with current information on the IoT product outweighs the potential for consumer confusion. We also believe the registry will be of value to consumers such that they will want to see it acknowledged in an easily accessible manner, which will override any potential difficulty retailers may have with scanning the incorrect code. Moreover, recognizing the realities of inventory turnover against the need for a cybersecurity label to be dynamic, the use of a QR Code-embedded URL in this context ensures that (1) if a consumer desires more information about the product than what the label itself signifies there is a simple means of access; and (2) information associated with the product's compliance with the IoT Labeling Program is current. We view these as relevant considerations to purchasing decisions, which requires easy access to such information “on the spot” rather than requiring a purchaser to independently seek it out.

99. We direct the Lead Administrator to collaborate with stakeholders as needed to recommend to the Commission standards for how the FCC IoT Label bearing the Cyber Trust Mark and the QR Code should be designed ( e.g., size and white spaces) and where such a label should be placed. This should include where the label could be placed on products where consumers may not see product packaging when shopping or after purchasing ( e.g., refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, etc.) and including where consumers purchase products online. The Lead Administrator and stakeholders should also examine whether the label design should include the date the manufacturer will stop supporting the product as well as whether including other security and privacy information ( e.g., sensor data collection) on the label would be useful to consumers. In addition, the Lead Administrator should address the use of the FCC IoT Label in store displays and advertising. [ 20 ] We recognize the current work being done by industry on an appropriate format for the label, including the Cybersecurity Label Design, which is part of CTA's American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-accredited standards program. As noted by CTA in its reply comments, the FCC specifies requirements for the use of the Cyber Trust Mark, but “there are several additional details needed regarding QR coding and resolution, white space for accurate recognition of QR codes, and more.” CTA states that the draft ANSI/CTA-2120 details lay out requirements for packaging, and we encourage the Lead Administrator to review and consider the work CTA's Cybersecurity Label Design working group (a subgroup of CTA's Cybersecurity and Privacy Management Committee) has completed in this regard. We agree that we should take into consideration the considerable work that has already been undertaken with respect to labeling design and placement and seek to leverage and benefit from this expertise by directing the Lead Administrator to seek feedback from a cross-section of relevant stakeholders who have been working on these issues. We delegate authority to PSHSB to review, approve (or not approve) the Lead Administrator-recommended labeling design and placement standards after any required public notice and comment process and if approved incorporate into the Commission's part 8 rules. The provisions of 47 CFR 2.935(a) (allowing the electronic display of “or other information that the Commission's rules would otherwise require to be shown on a physical label attached to the device”) do not apply to the FCC IoT Label. The Cyber Trust Mark may only be used as directed by part 8, notwithstanding 47 CFR 2.935 or any other rule.

100. We adopt our proposal from the IoT Labeling NPRM that the label include the Cyber Trust Mark and a QR Code that links to a decentralized publicly available registry containing Start Printed Page 61263 information supplied by entities authorized to use the FCC IoT Label ( e.g., manufacturers) through a common Application Programming Interface (API). The registry will include and display consumer-friendly information about the security of the product. We believe a publicly accessible registry furthers the Commission's mission of allowing consumers to understand the cybersecurity capabilities of the IoT devices they purchase. We also agree that it is important for the registry to be dynamic, so a consumer can be aware if a product loses authorization to use the FCC IoT Label or if the manufacturer is no longer providing security updates. There is robust support for the development of a publicly-accessible registry. We agree with NCTA that “the IoT Registry is foundational to the value and utility of the Cyber Trust Mark Program.” In the following paragraphs, we establish general parameters for registry information.

101. We adopt a decentralized registry that contains specific essential information that will be disclosed by the manufacturer, as discussed in further detail below. This essential information from the manufacturer will be provided to a consumer accessible application via the registry by utilizing a common API that is secure by design. When a consumer scans the QR Code, a consumer accessible application will access the registry using the common API and present the consumer with the information we require to be displayed from the registry. CTIA points out that a centralized registry containing all the information the Commission conceived in the IoT Labeling NPRM and by commenters in the record would be inordinately complex and costly. We agree, and endeavor to meet the policy goal of providing a transparent, accessible registry to the public through more efficient and less complicated means.

102. We agree with the Commission's assessment in the IoT Labeling NPRM that the registry's goal is to assist the public in understanding security-related information about the products that bear the Cyber trust Mark. CTIA confirms this view, stating “the Commission should focus on the [registry] as a means to provide consumers with information that is critical to the success of the program.” CTIA further proposes that we should allow each manufacturer to establish their own mechanisms for conveying this information to consumers. However, we acknowledge ioXt Alliance's concern that a completely manufacturer-driven approach could lead to inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or other difficulties for the consumer. To balance the need for a workable, streamlined registry that is consistent for consumers and meets the Commission's goals while easing the administrative burden inherent in a centralized registry, we require a common API that would provide access to the following essential information from the manufacture and display it to the consumer in a simple, uniform way:

• Product Name;
• Manufacturer name;
• Date product received authorization ( i.e., cybersecurity certification) to affix the label and current status of the authorization (if applicable);
• Name and contact information of the CLA that authorized use of the FCC IoT Label;
• Name of the lab that conducted the conformity testing;
• Instructions on how to change the default password (specifically state if the default password cannot be changed);
• Information (or link) for additional information on how to configure the device securely;
• Information as to whether software updates and patches are automatic and how to access security updates/patches if they are not automatic;
• The date until which the entity promises to diligently identify critical vulnerabilities in the product and promptly issue software updates correcting them, unless such an update is not reasonably needed to protect against cybersecurity failures ( i.e., the minimum support period); alternatively, a statement that the device is unsupported and that the purchaser should not rely on the manufacturer to release security updates;
• Disclosure of whether the manufacturer maintains a Hardware Bill of Materials (HBOM) and/or a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM);  [ 21 ] and
• Additional data elements that the Bureau determines are necessary pursuant to the delegated authority discussed below.

103. To reduce potential burdens and focus on essential information, we pare back the scope of the registry from what the Commission proposed in the IoT Labeling NPRM. We agree with the Cybersecurity Coalition that “[t]he primary purpose of the label is to help consumers make informed purchasing decisions” and include in the registry information that is key to making a purchasing decision, without overwhelming the consumer. To this end, we agree with commenters who suggest that including the information proposed in the IoT Labeling NPRM may be too burdensome. NEMA, for example, expresses concern about the resources required for a registry containing a full catalogue of devices. CTIA agrees that the IoT registry envisioned by the IoT Labeling NPRM would “impose significant, unmeetable burdens” for participants and the manager of the registry, and encourages us to refine our approach. The Cybersecurity Coalition likewise expresses concern over the complexity of the proposed registry. We agree that the registry be “modest in its goals” and “limited to basic information that is uniform . . . and pragmatic and useful to the consumer.” We believe that a registry containing simple, easy to understand information will be most helpful to a consumer making a purchasing decision, but also see the value in allowing manufacturers to include a second registry page (following the consumer-focused page) to enable manufacturers to provide additional technical details designed for researchers, enterprise purchasers, and other expert consumers of the label. Focusing only on the most critical information will further facilitate the speedy establishment of the IoT Labeling Program and the registry itself.

104. In the interest of keeping information simple and establishing the database swiftly, we streamline the elements that should be included in the registry. We do require information about how to operate the device securely, including information about how to change the password, as it would help consumers understand the cybersecurity features of the products, how those products are updated or otherwise maintained by the manufacturer, and the consumer's role in maintaining the cybersecurity of the product. We do not require information about whether a product's security settings are protected against unauthorized changes as part of the initial rollout of the registry in an attempt to streamline the registry to address concerns that the registry would be too bulky or unfriendly to consumers. We recognize the value of ensuring the registry information is accessible to everyone, including those whose primary language is not English. Accordingly, we direct the Lead Administrator to recommend to the Bureau whether the registry should be in additional languages and if so, to recommend the specific languages for inclusion. We delegate authority to the Bureau to consider and adopt requirements in this regard upon review Start Printed Page 61264 of these recommendations. As the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers points out, the location of the product's manufacture is redundant with existing legal requirements. We also do not require labels to include an expiration date at this time as it may not be an applicable requirement for every product, but we direct the Label Administrator to consider whether to recommend including the product support end date on labels for certain products, or category of products.

105. While we recognize the value of utilizing the registry to keep consumers informed about product vulnerabilities, we note CTIA and Garmin's concerns about listing unpatched vulnerabilities as not providing value to consumers, discouraging manufacturers from participating in the program, and tipping off bad actors. We agree that these concerns are significant and do not require detailed information about vulnerability disclosures in the registry at this time. Rather, we require disclosure only of whether a manufacturer maintains an SBOM and HBOM for supply chain security awareness. We agree with Consumer Reports, NYC Cyber Command Office of Technology and Innovation (NYC OTI), and the Cybersecurity Coalition that an SBOM should be considered as an element of the registry. We also note that Garmin's concern is with disclosing the specific contents of an SBOM to the public, which “could reveal confidential business relationships with companies, as well as provide a roadmap for attackers,” but this is not what we require here. Requiring participating manufacturers to disclose only the maintenance of an SBOM and HBOM, rather than the contents therein, indicates an added level of software and hardware security while also protecting potentially sensitive information. Further, while we agree with CTA that a searchable registry would have value for the public, we are mindful of the resources, costs, and time involved with creating a registry that is searchable by each of the elements identified in the IoT Labeling NPRM. In limiting the registry as we have, we address the concerns that the registry may be too complex to administer in the initial iteration of the IoT Labeling Program. As discussed above, the decentralized, API-driven registry we adopt in the Order addresses the complexity concerns raised in the record. We cabin our initial vision of the registry and direct the Bureau, as described further below, to consider ways to make the initial design of the registry modest, with potential to scale the registry as the IoT Labeling Program grows.

106. In this respect, we note that NIST's research suggests that “future work should be done to examine potential issues of including an expiry date on a label.” NIST cited studies conducted by the UK Government that consumers were confused about what the expiration date meant, and an Australian government study in which consumers thought the device would stop working after that date. The UK research did conclude, however, that continued manufacturer support was important to survey participants. Consumer Reports suggested an expiration date, if present, should be tied to an end-of-support date rather than a renewal date. NIST's research into the importance of support dates to consumers coupled with the potential confusion of expiration dates and the support from the record lead us to conclude an expiration date is not warranted. We do find, however, that the disclosure of a minimum support period and end date for the support period for the device is appropriate and will provide meaningful information to consumers on the manufacturer's commitment to provide patches or other support—a vital issue in a dynamic threat environment. To ensure that information about this support period remains accurate, and to encourage manufacturers to support their products for longer periods, manufacturers shall be able to extend the support period in the registry through a mechanism to be determined by the Lead Administrator, but which should be expeditious and require no further disclosures.

107. While we identify the defined set of data that is consistent across all manufacturers, we believe the information contained in the registry for a particular IoT product or product class may also depend on the standards and testing procedures adopted for each particular IoT product. As such, in the near term, we expect there will be additional registry data elements that are specific to an IoT product, or classes of IoT products, that are not yet ripe for decision. We also recognize that some of the information recommended by NIST in its consumer education recommendations, discussed in further detail below, may be valuable for consumers to see in the registry. Accordingly, while we provide a baseline of necessary information that must be displayed for an IoT product in the registry, regardless of class the IoT product belongs to, we delegate authority to the Bureau to determine, subject to any required public notice and comment processes, whether any additional disclosure fields, such as the manufacturer's access control protections ( e.g., information about passwords, multi-factor authentication), whether or not the data is encrypted while in motion and at rest (including in the home, app, and cloud), patch policies and security or privacy information are necessary, and if so, what should they be.

108. We disagree with commenters, such as LG Electronics, who suggest that manufacturers should have discretion over whether to include additional privacy and/or security information through a QR Code, URL, or other scannable mechanism insofar as it would require additional information in the registry. LG Electronics, though supportive of adding a variety of data to the registry, acknowledges it is unclear how much detail or what types of information would be of value to a consumer. We believe that allowing discretion over what information is included in the registry may overcrowd it, or engender consumer confusion. Rather, uniform registry elements will provide greater consistency for consumers and adoption of uniform registry elements is supported by the record. We make clear, however, that we do not otherwise restrict what information manufacturers may include or reference on their product packaging, so long as it does not interfere with or undermine the display of the FCC IoT Label.

109. We recognize that a decentralized registry relying on data derived through an API from manufacturers will require some oversight to ensure that the registry, when accessed by consumers using QR Codes, functions as described and displays the required information about individual products. We direct the Lead Administrator to receive and address any technical issues that arise in connection with displaying the registry through the QR Code, the associated API, and consumer complaints with respect to the registry. CSA recommends that the Commission engage a third-party with operating the registry for cost and efficiency reasons. CTA agrees that the Commission should use a third-party to host and manage the registry due to the resources required to establish the registry. We agree that, given the structure of the registry as we adopt in the Order, the Lead Administrator is in the best position to interface with manufacturers to ensure the smooth operation of the registry.

110. We also recognize that for a registry of this magnitude to be effectively and timely rolled out requires significant input and Start Printed Page 61265 coordination with industry partners. To determine how the registry should be structured to best meet the goals of the IoT Labeling Program as we adopt in the Order, we direct the Bureau to seek comment and consider, as part of a public process, the technical details involved with the operation of the registry. We delegate authority to the Bureau to adopt a Public Notice, subject to any required public notice and comment, establishing the structure of the registry; identifying the common API; how the API should be structured; how the API should be used; how the queried data will be displayed to the consumer; how manufacturers need to maintain and implement the API in connection with its interactions with the registry; what, if any, additional disclosure fields would be most beneficial to consumers in the future, as discussed above; how the data in the registry returned by the API should be presented to the consumer; how the costs involved in maintaining the registry will be handled; how often the registry should be updated; whether to require the manufacturer to list the product sensors, what data is collected, if the data is shared with third parties, or security or privacy issues and if data should be replicated; and whether data should be replicated in multiple repositories—by the relevant CLA(s) or vendors, for example—and publicly accessible via a single query point; and any other technical information needed to establish the registry as we adopt in the Order. The Bureau should consider how to reduce burdens on manufacturers in supporting the decentralized registry. We delegate authority to PSHSB in coordination with, at a minimum, OMD (specifically the Office of the Chief Information Officer) and, to the extent necessary OGC (specifically the Senior Agency Official for Privacy) to identify and impose any applicable security or privacy requirements arising from Federal law or Federal guidance for the registry and to approve or modify the recommendations regarding the functional elements of the registry listed above. We further delegate authority to PSHSB to publish a Public Notice, subject to any required public notice and comment, adopting and incorporating into the Commission's rules any additional requirements or procedures necessary to implement the Cyber Trust Mark registry.

111. We adopt the proposal in the IoT Labeling NPRM that applicants must renew their authority to use the FCC IoT Label. Entities authorized to use the FCC IoT Label are required to ensure the product bearing the FCC IoT Label continue to comply with the Commission's program requirements. We disagree with the Connected Consumer Device Security Council (CCDS) that no renewals should be required and the product should simply bear the last date of testing. Such an approach could severely impair consumer trust in the label, especially if a product bearing the FCC IoT Label is being sold as new but is far out of date as to its initial achievement of the Mark.

112. For those that support some interval of renewal, the record is divided with respect to whether IoT Labeling Program applicants should file for renewal each year, as proposed in the IoT Labeling NPRM. Consumer Reports and TÜV SÜD agree that annual renewal is appropriate. AHAM feels that an annual renewal application as the Commission proposed was unnecessary, or at minimum “unnecessarily rigid.” AHAM posits that a requirement to renew should only be triggered when a significant or substantive change is made to either the standard the manufacturer certifies to, or a significant design change to the product. Similarly, more durable IoT products (such as smart appliances) may need to be renewed less frequently. NAM argues that annual renewals are unnecessary for products that pose a limited risk. Kaiser Permanente believes higher-risk devices should be updated annually, and otherwise renewal should occur every three years. CCDS argues no annual testing is necessary, and the product should simply have the date it was authorized to bear the label that signals the product was compliant as of the initial date. CSA suggests limiting the need for annual testing, but suggests some kind of annual reporting should be required. We observe that other certifying bodies, such as ioXt Alliance, require annual renewal for products they certify and allow incentives for early renewal. Based on the record, we recognize the degrees of nuance attendant to the different types of products at issue. We agree with the notion that certain IoT products, depending on their lifespan and risk level, may need different standards for renewal to achieve the FCC IoT Label.

113. We task the Lead Administrator to collaborate with stakeholders and provide recommendations to PSHSB on how often a given class of IoT products must renew their request for authority to bear the FCC IoT Label, which may be dependent on the type of product, and that such a recommendation be submitted in connection with the relevant standards recommendations for an IoT product or class of products. In doing so, consideration should be given as to whether annual continuous compliance reports are acceptable for purposes of renewing, and how to effectively balance the need for industry flexibility and the need to ensure that consumers have up-to-date information about the product they are considering purchasing. Consideration should also be given to the fees incurred as part of a renewal process, as we agree with Kaiser Permanente that renewal fees must not be unduly burdensome or cost-prohibitive. We emphasize that renewals should occur frequently enough that a consumer can be sure that a product bearing the FCC IoT Label has reasonable cybersecurity protections in place, and some process must be in place to ensure accountability, even if annual testing is not required. We delegate authority to PSHSB to review, approve (if appropriate) and, subject to any required public notice and comment, incorporate by reference into the Commission's rules, the proposals from the Lead Administrator for renewal of authority to bear the FCC IoT Label.

114. We adopt the IoT Labeling NPRM's proposal to rely on a combination of administrative remedies and civil litigation to address non-compliance and direct the CLA(s) to conduct post-market surveillance. The purpose of this IoT Labeling Program is to provide reasonable assurances to the consumer that the products they bring into their homes have at least a minimum level of cybersecurity. The success of the IoT Labeling Program hinges on the label retaining its integrity as a trusted consumer resource. This requires vigorous review and enforcement to ensure that products bearing the Cyber Trust Mark are in compliance with the program standards. We further observe that the ISO/IEC 17065 standards require CLAs to perform appropriate post-market surveillance activities. We adopt post-market surveillance and civil enforcement, accordingly.

115. We find support in the record that the “Mark must be trusted by consumers to be successful” and “to gain consumer confidence and incentivize cybersecurity, the label must be backed by a robust enforcement program.” We agree with the EPIC's position that weak enforcement may result in unmet consumer expectations regarding a product's actual level of cybersecurity and “allow bad actors to take advantage of the goodwill created Start Printed Page 61266 by the cybersecurity program,” and take up its recommendation of independent, post-market audits accordingly. Whirlpool also supports regular market surveillance to find instances of unapproved use of the Cyber Trust Mark, as well as products that may have been certified but no longer meet program requirements. Whirlpool states that surveillance “should include random auditing . . . as well as sampling of some established percentage on a regular basis of certified products/devices.” The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation supports adopting the product surveillance standards established for Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs) and in the EPA's ENERGY STAR program. We also agree with commenters who indicate that the Commission, CLAs, and possibly the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should be able to receive complaints of noncompliant displays of the Cyber Trust Mark, which could result in auditing. We delegate authority to the Bureau, in coordination with the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, to determine the process for receiving and responding to complaints. CTA and Planar Systems also support random auditing. We agree that random audits, in addition to regular post-market surveillance will best serve to maintain consumer confidence in the Cyber Trust Mark. [ 22 ]

116. Post-market surveillance. We agree with the Cybersecurity Coalition that post-market surveillance of products receiving the Cyber Trust Mark should be a principal enforcement mechanism, and find that CLAs are in the best position to conduct post-market surveillance and random auditing, in accordance with ISO/IEC 17065. These activities are based on type testing a certain number of samples of the total number of product types which the CLA has certified. In addition, each CLA must be prepared to receive and address post-market surveillance from the public. If a CLA determines that a product fails to comply with the technical regulations for that product, the CLA will immediately notify the grantee and the Lead Administrator in writing. The grantee will have 20 days to provide a report to the CLA describing actions taken to correct the deficiencies. Continued deficiency after 20 days will result in termination of the grantee's approval to display the Cyber Trust Mark. A grantee's approval to display the Cyber Trust Mark may also be terminated subject to the 20 day cure period for false statements or representations found in their application or associated materials or if other conditions come to the attention of a CLA which would warrant initial refusal to authorize use of the FCC Label. Such terminations will protect the integrity of the FCC IoT Label and encourage accurate representations and disclosures in application materials that will enhance the reliability of the Labeling Program's operation, more generally.

117. We believe it is appropriate for the Lead Administrator, in collaboration with the CLAs and other stakeholders, to identify or develop, and recommend to the Commission for approval, the post market surveillance activities and procedures that CLAs will use for performing post-market surveillance. The recommendations should include specific requirements such as the number and types of samples that a CLA must test and the requirement that grantees submit, upon request by PSHSB or a CLA, a sample directly to the CLA to be evaluated for compliance at random or as needed. [ 23 ] We delegate authority to the Bureau to review the recommendations and, subject to any required public notice and comment, incorporate post market procedures into the Commission's rules. We also delegate authority to the Bureau to establish requirements (subject to any required public notice and comment) regarding post-market surveillance of products in any instances where the CLA that granted the authorization of the product is not available to conduct such post-market surveillance. The document will also address procedures to be followed if a grantee's approval to display the Cyber Trust Mark is terminated based on mandatory post-market surveillance or notice from the public, including disqualification from the IoT Labeling Program and potential further investigation into other products related to the manufacturer or the CyberLAB, as discussed below. Finally, the Lead Administrator will submit periodic reports to PSHSB of the CLAs' post-market surveillance activities and findings in the format and by the date specified by PSHSB.

118. The IoT Labeling NPRM sought comment on disqualification for nonconformity, referencing the Department of Energy's ENERGY STAR program, which sets out contractual Disqualification Procedures, including a 20 day period to dispute before a formal disqualification decision and what steps an ENERGY STAR partner must take after being formally disqualified ( e.g., removing references to ENERGY STAR in the product labeling, marketing). The IoT Labeling NPRM asked whether the IoT Labeling Program should adopt a similar process. We agree with EPIC and Planar Systems in supporting a “cure period [to] give[ ] good actors the opportunity to fix any issues without incurring penalties” and ” to address any discovered non-conformance as long as the manufacturer is acting in good faith.” Here, we adopt a cure period of 20 days, which is in line with the ENERGY STAR program.

119. EPIC also supports adopting disqualification procedures similar to ENERGY STAR's for non-compliance, including ceasing shipments of units displaying the label, ceasing the labeling of associated units, removing references to the label from marketing materials, and covering or removing labels on noncompliant units within the brand owner's control. It notes that the EPA also conducts retail store level assessments to identify mislabeled products and argues that a robust enforcement mechanism should include all of these actions. We delegate to the Bureau to consider whether such requirements should follow from termination of authority.

120. In addition, we find that a combination of enforcement procedures for non-compliance are available, including administrative remedies under the Communications Act and civil litigation trademark infringement or breach of contract. Administrative remedies may include, but are not limited to, show cause orders, forfeitures, consent decrees, cease and desist orders, and penalties. The Commission will pursue all available means to prosecute entities who improperly or fraudulently use the FCC IoT Label, which may include, but are not limited to, enforcement actions, legal claims of deceptive practices prosecuted through the FTC, [ 24 ] and legal Start Printed Page 61267 claims for trademark infringement or breach of contract. The record supports both administrative remedies to address consumer harm and civil enforcement actions for false use of the FCC IoT Label. We assert that this combination of enforcement mechanisms are best suited to protect consumer trust in the Cyber Trust Mark and incentivize participant compliance.

121. Cyber Trust Mark Demonstrates Adherence to Widely Accepted Industry Cybersecurity Standards. While we decline to preempt state law, we find that approval to use the Cyber Trust Mark on a particular product is an indicator of reasonableness and demonstrates adherence to widely accepted industry cybersecurity standards. While several commenters support Commission preemption of state laws, as well as adoption of liability protections for devices approved to display the Cyber Trust Mark, we decline to preempt state law and decline to implement a legal safe harbor beyond reiterating the Commission's view that achievement of FCC IoT Label is an indicium of reasonableness for entities whose products are compromised despite being approved to use the Cyber Trust Mark. We recognize that a more fulsome safe harbor provision may indeed incentivize participation in the IoT Labeling Program, as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges. However, on this record we are not persuaded that it would be feasible or prudent for the Commission to make liability pronouncements as to laws or standards outside the Commission's purview as would be necessary for a broader safe harbor in the absence of preemption. As EPIC observes, such a safe harbor could also decrease consumer trust in the label. In addition, several states have adopted legal safe harbors for entities that implement reasonable security measures ( e.g., voluntarily adopt recognized best practices such as NIST's and implement written security programs), and we defer to the states to determine whether approval to use the Cyber Trust Mark meets these State requirements. Given the uncertain interplay between qualification to use the Cyber Trust Mark and various state law regimes, coupled with the risk that such a safe harbor could decrease consumer trust in the label, we decline to preempt state liability requirements at this time.

122. We note the robust record highlighting the immense value to manufacturers of IoT products in international harmonization of cybersecurity standards. We agree with Widelity that “IoT devices are often manufactured and sold globally. As supply chains evolve, a consistent set of standards will support the rapid growth of innovation and security.” We further agree with Consumer Reports that “mutual recognition should only occur when the other program to be recognized has standards as stringent or more stringent” than the IoT Labeling Program.

123. We recognize several other countries already have an established national cyber IoT labeling program, including Singapore, Finland, and Germany. The record cites to these programs and highlights their features for consideration in developing the IoT Labeling Program. For example, the record explains how Singapore's CLS takes reference from the EN 303 645 standards developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). We note that other commenters have also recommended use of the ETSI EN 303 645 standards. Further, the record provides Finland's IoT labeling database as an example for developing our IoT registry. Several other countries have government activity around IoT devices or products. For example, Canada has a cybersecurity certification program for small and medium-sized organizations. As another example, South Korea has a IoT security certification system justified under Article 48-6 of their “Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection” statute.

124. We also observe continuing developments in IoT security across the globe for consideration. The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) is currently developing a cybersecurity certification framework that would require certain products, services, and processes to adhere to specific requirements. Relatedly, the U.S. has signed an agreement for a joint roadmap between the Cyber Trust Mark and similar consumer labeling programs in the EU. Further, Japan has committed to work with the U.S. to “ensure interoperability” of its IoT labeling scheme currently under development.

125. We fully recognize the importance of ensuring international recognition of the IoT Labeling Program and reciprocity considerations underlie our decisions in the Order. We delegate authority to the Bureau and the FCC Office of International Affairs to work with other Federal agencies to develop international recognition of the Commission's IoT label and mutual recognition of international labels, where appropriate, as promptly as possible to enable recipients of the Cyber Trust Mark to realize the benefits an internationally recognized Cyber Trust Mark can have to promote global market access. Moreover, the proliferation in the marketplace both in the U.S. and abroad of products meeting a common baseline standard will elevate the overall global cybersecurity baseline for IoT and promote security-by-design approaches to smart products.

126. We adopt the IoT Labeling NPRM's proposal and base the IoT Labeling Program's consumer education requirements on the considerations NIST outlines in the NIST Cybersecurity White Paper due to its general applicability to an IoT label and in light of support from the record. The Lead Administrator will be responsible for developing a consumer education campaign that is based on the considerations recommended by NIST in the NIST Cybersecurity White Paper and discussed in greater detail below. In developing its consumer education plan, we task the Lead Administrator with considering ways to roll out a robust campaign with a reasonable national reach, including ways to make the consumer education accessible and whether education materials should be developed in multiple languages. We further task the Lead Administrator with considering the costs of conducting such outreach and how that outreach would be funded. Once developed, the Lead Administrator will submit this consumer education plan to the Bureau for consideration and for coordination in publicizing the benefits of the IoT Labeling Program. We recognize the importance of close collaboration between industry and delegate authority to the Bureau to consider and work with the Lead Administrator and other stakeholders to determine how the consumer education campaign would be executed and to execute the campaign. In addition and in furtherance of our expectation that the success of the IoT Labeling Program will be dependent on a close collaboration with the Federal Government, industry, and other relevant stakeholders, the Commission will coordinate as needed with relevant agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation Start Printed Page 61268 (FBI), as well as the FTC, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and other industry stakeholders who have indicated a willingness to publicize the benefits of the IoT Labeling Program as part of their own consumer education activities.

127. We agree with CEDIA that consumer education will have a significant impact on meeting the IoT Labeling Program's goals. We further agree that adequate consumer education must inform consumers of the limitations of the Cyber Trust Mark as well as the benefits of having a product that meets baseline cybersecurity requirements, and we agree with CSA that consumers should understand that the label does not guarantee complete device security, but that such protections are an important component of risk management. As pointed out by the City of New York's Office of Technology and Innovation, an effective consumer education program would need to cover the risks and threats to “digital integration of [IoT] devices” and how those risks “can be lessened by helping operators, users, and consumers . . . learn the key elements of a strong IoT Cybersecurity posture.” We agree with commenters in the record that NIST's approach to consumer education is best, and note that no commenters opposed NIST's approach.

128. As the Commission acknowledged in the IoT Labeling NPRM, NIST has prepared a document identifying consumer education considerations as part of its analysis of a cybersecurity labeling program. In following with NIST's recommendations, the Commission believes consumers should have access to the following information as part of the IoT Labeling Program's consumer education plan:

(1) What the label means and does not mean, including that the label does not imply an endorsement of the product and that labeled products have not completely eliminated risk;

(2) What cybersecurity baselines must be met to obtain authority to affix the label, why they were included, and how those criteria address security risks;

(3) A glossary of applicable terms, written in plain English;

(4) General information about the conformity assessment process, including information about how the conformity assessment was conducted and the date the label was awarded to the product;

(5) The kinds of products eligible for the label and an easy way for consumers to identify labeled products;

(6) The current state of device labeling as new cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities emerge;

(7) Security considerations for end-of-life IoT products and functionality implications if the product is no longer connected to the internet;

(8) Consumer's shared responsibility for securing the device software and how their actions (or inactions) can impact the product's software cybersecurity; and

(9) Contact information for the IoT Labeling Program and information on how consumers can lodge a complaint regarding a product label.

129. We recognize that some aspects of this consumer education campaign overlap other aspects of the IoT Labeling Program, such as the registry. We see no harm with including that information in the registry as well as the consumer education campaign. We also observe the importance of conducting what NIST describes as a “campaign” to establish and increase label recognition, and thus envision a Lead Administrator-led, multiple stakeholder engagement that puts NIST's recommendations into practice.

130. NIST has conducted research into the consumer perspective on the loss of manufacturer support in IoT products. The research suggests that proactive communication to consumers from the manufacturer with information about end-of-life support policies, the expected lifespan, and how to sign up for notifications about changes to support is an additional, important step. NIST also emphasizes the importance of consumer education about the meaning of the dates attached to a label, and cautions that this can confuse consumers as to the date's meaning. We agree with Consumer Reports that educating consumers about the meaning of support periods is an important aspect of consumer education. We believe that the recommendations identified by NIST in the NIST Cybersecurity White Paper, coupled with the consumer research done by NIST and industry, provide a strong model that the Lead Administrator can utilize in its consumer education campaign to meet the goals NIST and the record, discussed above, identify as important for a successful consumer education campaign.

131. To assist the Lead Administrator in promoting consumer education, the Commission will coordinate publicizing the benefits of the IoT Labeling Program with the relevant agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, CISA, FBI, FTC, CPSC, and other industry stakeholders who have indicated a willingness to assist with consumer education. A coalition of trade associations advocates for a consumer education program led by the U.S. Government, but do not propose how to conduct outreach consistent with the Federal outreach concerns articulated in the IoT Labeling NPRM. We agree that a government outreach program is essential in a larger campaign to effectively inform consumers about the IoT Labeling Program, consistent with NIST's recommendations identified above. The Commission intends to work closely with CISA to make use of their “Secure our World” program. We agree with CTA that Federal consumer education efforts do not preclude independent communication and outreach programs. For example, the National Retail Foundation indicated their willingness to support consumer education efforts. While Everything Set, Inc. is concerned that outsized private sector involvement in consumer education might hurt the campaign's credibility, we believe that retail and manufacturer involvement in promoting the IoT Labeling Program and the limitations of the IoT Labeling Program are important to ensure widespread recognition of the Cyber Trust Mark in commerce. To promote consumer education and engage in a joint effort with industry and stakeholders to raise awareness of the label, the Commission will coordinate with the Lead Administrator, Executive Agencies, and other industry stakeholders who have indicated a willingness to publicize the benefits of the IoT Labeling Program as part of their own consumer education efforts.

132. Our analysis indicates that the expected benefits of the IoT Labeling Program greatly exceed the expected costs of the program. The expected benefits of the IoT Labeling Program include improved consumer cyber awareness; reduced vulnerability of products that could be used in cyberattacks both in people's homes and as part of a larger national IoT ecosystem; and increased manufacturer competition and relational benefits stemming from increased goodwill and product awareness. Consumers value the security of their devices, and the complexity of understanding whether IoT devices meet baseline security standards, and making informed purchases on that basis is a significant cost to consumers.

133. Consumer Benefit from Reduced Search Costs. The Cyber Trust Mark can lower consumer research costs by reducing the amount of time consumers spend researching the cybersecurity Start Printed Page 61269 characteristics of IoT products before making a purchase. We estimate that the Cyber Trust Mark will save consumers at least $60 million annually from reduced time spent researching cybersecurity features of potential purchases. We use the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)'s approach of valuing the time savings of travel to value the time savings to consumers of the Cyber Trust Mark. Our analysis relies on the share of households with a smart home device (which we note is only one segment of the IoT market likely to be impacted by the Order), the share of those households that are likely to devote time to investigating the cybersecurity of their connected products, and an estimate of their time value of researching cybersecurity characteristics of devices. First, we estimate that 49 million U.S. households own at least one IoT device from a market segment that likely will be impacted by the Cyber Trust Mark. Further, recent survey evidence suggests that 32% of households are invested in reducing their cybersecurity risk. We estimate each hour of time savings to be valued at $16 based on the median compensation in the U.S. and an individual's potential preference for researching products rather than working an additional hour. We note that this calculation only focuses on one segment of the IoT market, which may underestimate the time savings induced by the Order. We recognize that the exact time savings of utilizing the Cyber Trust Mark relative to searching for information online is unknown, so a lower end estimate of 15 minutes of time savings per year per household is used. We find a 15-minute time savings is consistent with the value of cybersecurity features disclosed in surveys. Given manufacturer and industry group comments showing support for consumer awareness and cybersecurity, we believe there would be sufficiently large enough immediate manufacturer participation in the IoT Labeling Program to incur these benefits in the first year of the program, and every year thereafter. Nationwide, the Cyber Trust Mark would result in a minimum of $60 million in time savings annually. [ 25 ]

134. A separate approach to calculating the benefit of the Cyber Trust Mark is to estimate the value consumers place on security and privacy features of IoT devices. A study submitted by Consumer Reports found that respondents valued individual security upgrades between $6 and $13. The study also found that devices were valued at around $34 more if they had a label emphasizing a bundle of the most protective security features. Given the difficulty consumers face in understanding what security and privacy features are included in a device, the Cyber Trust Mark would help consumers easily identify and choose products with features they value. For example, if the Cyber Trust Mark represented the most protective features associated with the label in the in the study, a consumer would benefit by $34 from purchasing a device with the Cyber Trust Mark over a device that did not display the Mark. Based on our estimate of 15 million households that would be impacted by the IoT labeling program, we estimate that the benefit to consumers, in terms of the added value of the Cyber Trust Mark, would be between $85 million and $500 million annually. While the exact security features that will be proposed by the Lead Administrator in collaboration with stakeholders are not yet determined, if the Cyber Trust Mark only emphasized the lowest valued security feature, the program would produce a benefit of at least $85 million.

135. Manufacturer Competitive and Reputational Benefits. Aside from the direct benefits to consumers, there are also wider benefits of the Cyber Trust Mark. Participating businesses benefit from product differentiation and quality signaling vis-a-vis competitors that do not participate in the IoT Labeling Program and from increased company goodwill and reduced risks related to cybersecurity incidents. By aligning minimum security practices with the proposed standards, and communicating those standards to consumers, manufacturers may be able to generate goodwill and reduce business loss after cybersecurity incidences. While we do not revisit our discussion of a safe harbor from liability as discussed above, we note that manufacturers may benefit from adopting security practices that are consistent with standards necessary to bear the Cyber Trust Mark. We highlight that there have been several instances where the Federal Trade Commission investigated and settled with firms due to poor security practices or inaccurate communication of their security practices. We merely note that a manufacturer that has gone through the process of obtaining the Cyber Trust Mark may benefit from likely having documented the security practices and attendant testing necessary to acquire the Mark.

136. Market-Wide Benefits of Reduced Cybersecurity Incidents. Insecure IoT products are often used in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, which can be used to overwhelm websites to create a distraction during other cybersecurity crimes, or to request a ransom be paid to stop the attack. While we cannot quantify the expected benefits the Cyber Trust Mark may have on reducing the number of vulnerable devices and/or the potential reduction on their likelihood of being used in a cybersecurity attack, commenters do highlight improved security as one of the major benefits of this IoT Labeling Program. We do further emphasize this as a benefit that is likely to have significant impacts on firms in a wide range of industries.

137. Costs to IoT Labeling Program Participants. Only those entities who choose to participate will incur costs associated with the voluntary IoT Labeling Program. The specific costs of to participating manufacturers cannot be readily measured but are expected to include: conformity testing fees at a CyberLAB, CLA lab, or through in-house testing; CLA fees; internal compliance and filing costs; Cyber Trust Mark placement on product; costs incurred for API access as part of the QR Code; a customer information campaign; and adjustments to security practices necessary to meet the standards established for the Cyber Trust Mark. These costs are likely to vary depending on the standards and testing procedures proposed by the Lead Administrator as well as the extent of manufacturer participation. Any in-house testing lab will also be required to obtain accreditation to ISO/IEC standards and will incur the accreditation costs. We expect that manufacturers that choose to pursue this option may offset the accreditation costs with time savings, and potentially cost savings, associated with in-house testing.

138. Participating manufacturers will incur conformity testing, reporting costs, potential renewal fees, and Label Administrator processing fees, but the Commission's IoT Labeling Program is voluntary and we only expect manufacturers who would benefit from the program to participate in the long-run, further indicating that accrued benefits will exceed manufacturer costs. Furthermore, comments in the record show that many manufacturers and industry groups are in favor of consumer awareness and addressing cybersecurity concerns. This provides some indication that manufacturers perceive the benefits of participating in the IoT Labeling Program as outweighing the costs. We understand Start Printed Page 61270 that manufacturers' security practices for IoT products vary. Some manufacturers will find it beneficial to align their cybersecurity standards with the IoT Labeling Program's standards and apply for the Cyber Trust Mark. If a manufacturer decides not to participate in the program, then they will not experience any additional costs.

139. Cost of Registry Development and Administration. We attempt to estimate the cost of developing and administering the registry with currently available information, recognizing that our cost estimate is unable to incorporate pending issues that will be addressed by the Bureau as discussed above. While the cost to the Lead Administrator to manage the registry in accordance with the Bureau's pending determinations and as discussed above are forthcoming, we nevertheless attempt to estimate the costs of the Lead Administrator' administrative role in managing the registry as described above. Our estimate utilizes data submitted by Consumer Reports, which envisioned a centralized registry. We note that the registry, as adopted, will be less burdensome than the costs described by Consumer Reports in their estimates. [ 26 ] Our estimate to maintain registry components and review applications as part of the CLA duties, which aligns with the middle of the expert range based on commenter submissions, is approximately $5 million annually. The high-end estimate submitted by Consumer Reports is $10 million. Consumer Reports indicates that setting up a centralized registry could be done by one individual with a few contractors at a cost less than $200,000 a year. Depending on the requirements, the Lead CLA may still need to set up some minimal components of a registry and incur a small portion of these costs. The estimates on the annual administration costs are much less precise with the expert proposed estimate of between $100k and $10 million annually, with indication that the $10 million estimate is on the very high end. Staff calculate a more reasonable, but likely still high, estimate in the middle of that range, even accounting for the advanced technical expertise that would be required to review applications. For example, an organization relying on five lawyers, five electrical engineers, and five software developers in a full-time capacity would require $3 million annually in wage compensation. If we generously assume another $2 million in additional costs to accommodate ISO/IEC accreditation, contractors, facilities, and other resources, the total is $5 million. While these estimates are for a single administrator, we believe this is a reasonable estimate of the staffing costs that would be distributed among the CLAs to meet the requirements of reviewing applications.

140. The estimated high-end costs of administering the IoT Labeling Program annually ($10 million) are far less than the low-end estimate of annual benefits to consumers ($60 million) of just one aspect of the program. We further highlight that the benefits to manufacturers are likely to exceed manufacturer's participation costs. Together this indicates the total program benefits exceed costs. Because the initial startup costs are so low relative to the benefits, we do not compare the discounted values.

141. We adopt the IoT Labeling NPRM's tentative conclusion that the FCC has authority to adopt the IoT Labeling Program. We conclude that section 302 provides us with the authority to adopt a voluntary program for manufacturers seeking authority to affix the FCC-owned Cyber Trust Mark on wireless consumer IoT products that comply with the program requirements. In the IoT Labeling NPRM, the Commission sought comment on its authority under section 302 of the Act, along with other possible sources of authority. In particular, under section 302(a) of the Act, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, the Commission is authorized to make reasonable regulations (1) governing the interference potential of devices which in their operation are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to cause harmful interference to radio communications; and (2) establishing minimum performance standards for home electronic equipment and systems to reduce their susceptibility to interference from radio frequency energy.

142. Some commenters question our authority under section 302 to establish an IoT Labeling Program. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce cautions the Commission to not “overinterpret its harmful interference authority” under sections 302(a) and 333. CTIA argues that the Commission does not have the authority to regulate cybersecurity, but does not cite to section 302(a) or explain why the Commission's action in the Order does not fall within the scope of section 302(a) or any other section of the Communications Act. Others do not dispute the Commission's authority to adopt a voluntary program but argue that the Commission does not have the authority to make the IoT Labeling Program mandatory.

143. We agree with Comcast that Congress intended section 302 to be flexible enough “to address novel issues not yet on the legislative radar[.]” As Comcast further observes, “[t]he stated goal of the [IoT Labeling] Program is to `ensure that IoT devices have implemented certain minimum cybersecurity protocols to prevent their being hacked by bad actors who could cause the devices to cause harmful interference to radio communications,' which falls squarely within the Commission's remit under section 302(a).” Further, NYC OTI points out that IoT which “by design doesn't protect against the reception of spurious or unintended RF communications may be subject to a series of radio-layer attacks due to the lack of these protections” and thus is within our authority to regulate. A voluntary IoT Labeling Program thus assures consumers that certain cybersecurity standards are met to protect those devices from being used to generate interference to other devices.

144. In addition to our authority under section 302(a)(1), section 302(a)(2) authorizes the Commission to “establish minimum performance standards for home electronic equipment and systems to reduce their susceptibility to interference from radio frequency energy.” A voluntary program for consumer IoT products is encompassed within our authority to regulate home electronic equipment and their accompanying systems that render that home electronic equipment operational.

145. Section 302(a)(2) allows such regulations to apply to “the manufacture, import, sale, offer for sale, or shipment of such devices and home electronic equipment and systems[.]” The legislative history of section 302 also supports our conclusion. Congress adopted section 302 due to concerns about radio frequency interference to consumer electronic equipment:

In the market for home devices, however, good faith industry attempts to solve this interference have not always been as successful. . . . [T]he Conferees believe that Commission authority to impose appropriate regulations on home electronic equipment and systems is now necessary to insure that consumers' home electronic equipment and Start Printed Page 61271 systems will not be subject to malfunction due to [radio frequency interference].

146. Congress envisioned “home electronic equipment and systems” to include not only radio and television sets, but all types of electronics and their supporting systems used by consumers. Examples given by Congress were home burglar alarms, security systems, automatic garage door openers, record turntables, and sound systems. Congress clearly foresaw interference and disruption to consumer equipment and the systems that equipment was connected to as within the ambit of section 302 when it gave the Commission “exclusive jurisdiction” over matters involving radio frequency interference. The many alternatives available to the Commission to accomplish its duty under section 302 include directing manufacturers to meet “certain minimal standards” or utilizing labels.

147. We additionally conclude that our section 302(a) authority to adopt “reasonable regulations” governing the interference potential of devices capable of causing RF interference empowers us to choose specific approaches that advance goals of the Act in addition to the core concerns in section 302(a)(1) and (2). For one, as widely supported in the record, we rely on NIST's recommended IoT criteria (the NIST Core Baseline) as the foundation for the cybersecurity requirements to be applied under the IoT Labeling Program. Even if some elements or applications of those criteria could advance policies or interests in addition to guarding against the risk that exploited vulnerabilities in internet-connected wireless consumer IoT products could cause harmful interference, it would be neither prudent nor workable to try to segregate or disaggregate that package of criteria in an effort to isolate some product capabilities from others in an effort to narrow the Program's focus. To the contrary, maintaining the integrity of the cohesive package of NIST criteria advances the directive in section 302(a) to address the interference potential of wireless devices through “reasonable regulations.” Commenters point out, for example, that even when harmful interference to IoT products from cyberattacks “is not necessarily the traditional form of interference caused by devices operating in frequencies and at power levels not approved by the Commission[,]” it can implicate statutory policy concerns nonetheless. Under the circumstances here, we thus find it “reasonable” for our IoT Labeling Program to rely on the full package of IoT cybersecurity criteria that guard against the risk that the covered products cause harmful interference, and also guard against the risk of interference to those covered products—even in the case of non-RF interference—consistent with the policy goals underlying provisions such as sections 302(a) and 333 and of the Act. Our understanding of the reasonableness of our approach here also is informed by the public safety and national security goals in sections 1 and 4(n) of the Act. Thus, although we do not rely on additional provisions beyond section 302 as authority for the voluntary IoT Labeling Program we adopt in the Order, they inform our understanding of what regulatory approach to implementing section 302(a) is reasonable under these circumstances. [ 27 ]

148. Comcast also cites the legislative history of section 302(a) in support of our authority to establish an IoT Labeling Program. Congress agreed with a letter from the Commission that initial language that would have restricted section 302(a) to devices that cause harmful interference to “`commercial, aircraft, and public safety' radio communications” was too narrow. Congress instead adopted the current language: “reasonable regulations . . . consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” The Commission's authority under section 302 was designed by Congress to be “sufficiently broad to permit it to formulate rules relating to any service where interference from these devices is a serious problem.” Such language, it was believed, would be “sufficiently broad to permit it to formulate rules relating to any service where interference from these devices is a serious problem.” We conclude that a voluntary program with minimum standards to prevent radio interference to consumer IoT products is consistent with the text and history of section 302.

149. Further, we have previously imposed security requirements that prevent unauthorized parties from accessing and alerting technology to cause radio interference under our section 302 authority. In 2020, we required that access points to automated frequency coordination systems were secure so unauthorized parties could not alter the list of available frequencies and power levels sent to an access point. We agree with Comcast that our previous actions requiring end user devices to “contain security features sufficient to protect against modification of software and firmware by any unauthorized parties” and actions to secure unlicensed national information infrastructure devices are sufficiently analogous to this proceeding as to be supported by our section 302 authority.

150. Finally, consistent with our tentative conclusion in the IoT Labeling NPRM, we find that our section 302 authority enables us to rely on third parties in carrying out the implementation details of our Program. As the Commission pointed out in the NPRM, section 302(e) of the Act authorizes the Commission to delegate equipment testing and certification to private laboratories, and the Commission already has relied in part on third parties in carrying out its equipment authorization rules that likewise implement section 302 of the Act.

151. These final rules include regulatory text that is incorporated by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5 , the Commission describes the incorporated materials here. These final rules are incorporating by reference the following ISO/IEC standards: ISO/IEC 17011:2017(E), Conformity assessment—Requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies, Second Edition, November 2017, ISO/IEC 17025:2017(E), General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, Third Edition, November 2017, and ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E), Conformity assessment—Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services, First Edition, 2012-09-15, which establish international standards requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies; general requirements for testing and calibration laboratories; and conformity assessment requirements for certifying products, processes, and services; respectively. Copies of these standards are available for purchase from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) through its NSSN operation ( www.nssn.org ) at Customer Service, American National Standards Institute, 25 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036, telephone (212) 642-4900.

152. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains new and modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13 . It Start Printed Page 61272 will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198 , see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4) , we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

153. In this document, we have assessed the effects of the operational framework for a voluntary IoT cybersecurity labeling program. Since the IoT Labeling Program is voluntary, small entities who do not participate in the IoT Labeling Program will not be subject to any new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance obligations. Small entities that choose to participate in the IoT Labeling Program by seeking authority to affix the Cyber Trust Mark on their products will incur recordkeeping and reporting as well as other obligations that are necessary to test their IoT products to demonstrate compliance with the requirements we adopt in the Order. We find that, for the Cyber Trust Mark to have meaning for consumers, the requirements for an IoT product to receive the Cyber Trust Mark must be uniform for both small businesses and other entities. Thus, the Commission continues to maintain the view we expressed in the IoT Labeling NPRM, that the significance of mark integrity, and building confidence among consumers that devices and products containing the Cyber Trust Mark label can be trusted to be cyber secure, necessitates adherence by all entities participating in the IoT Labeling Program to the same rules regardless of size.

154. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Act (FRFA) Analysis for the final rules adopted in the Order was prepared and can be found as Exhibit B of the FCC's Report and Order, FCC 24-26, adopted March 15, 2024, at this link: https://docs.fcc.gov/​public/​attachments/​FCC-24-26A1.pdf .

155. OPEN Government Data Act. The OPEN Government Data Act requires agencies to make “public data assets” available under an open license and as “open Government data assets,” i.e., in machine-readable, open format, unencumbered by use restrictions other than intellectual property rights, and based on an open standard that is maintained by a standards organization. This requirement is to be implemented “in accordance with guidance by the Director” of the OMB. The term “public data asset” means “a data asset, or part thereof, maintained by the Federal Government that has been, or may be, released to the public, including any data asset, or part thereof, subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).” A “data asset” is “a collection of data elements or data sets that may be grouped together,” and “data” is “recorded information, regardless of form or the media on which the data is recorded.” We delegate authority, including the authority to adopt rules, to the Bureau, in consultation with the agency's Chief Data Officer and after seeking public comment to the extent it deems appropriate, to determine whether to make publicly available any data assets maintained or created by the Commission within the meaning of the OPEN Government Act pursuant to the rules adopted herein, and if so, to determine when and to what extent such information should be made publicly available. Such data assets may include assets maintained by a CLA or other third party, to the extent the Commission's control or direction over those assets may bring them within the scope of the OPEN Government Act, as interpreted in the light of guidance to be issued by OMB. [ 28 ] In doing so, the Bureau shall take into account the extent to which such data assets are subject to disclosure under the FOIA.

156. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).

157. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(n), 302, 303(r), 312, 333, and 503, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 , 152 , 154(i) , 154(n) , 302a , 303(r) , 312 , 333 , 503 ; the IoT Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2020, 15 U.S.C. 278g-3a through 278g-3e ; the Report and Order is hereby adopted.

158. It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director, Performance Program Management, SHALL SEND a copy of the Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) .

• Communications
• Consumer protection
• Cybersecurity
• Electronic products
• Incorporation by reference, internet
• Product testing and certification
• Telecommunications

Federal Communications Commission

Marlene Dortch,

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR subchapter A as follows:

1. Under the authority of 47 U.S.C. 151 , 152 , 153 , 154(i)-(j) , 160 , 163 , 201 , 202 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , 219 , 220 , 230 , 251 , 254 , 256 , 257 , 301 , 303 , 304 , 307 , 309 , 310 , 312 , 316 , 332 , 403 , 501 , 503 , 522 , 1302 , revise the heading for subchapter A to read as follows:

2. The authority citation for part 8 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 163 , 201 , 202 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 216 , 217 , 257 , 301 , 302a , 303 , 304 , 307 , 309 , 312 , 316 , 332 , 403 , 501 , 503 , 522 , 1302 , 1753 .

3. Revise the heading for part 8 to read as set forth above.

4. Designate §§ 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.6 as subpart A.

5. Add a heading for newly designated subpart A to read as follows:

6. Add subpart B to read as follows:

Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 . All approved incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact the FCC at the address indicated in 47 CFR 0.401(a) , phone: (202) 418-0270. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/​federal-register/​cfr/​ibr-locations or email [email protected] . The material may be obtained from the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC Central Office, 3, rue de Varembe, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, Email: [email protected] , www.iec.ch .

(a) ISO/IEC 17011:2017(E), Conformity assessment—Requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies, Second Edition, November 2017; IBR approved for § 8.217.

(b) ISO/IEC 17025:2017(E), General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, Third Edition, November 2017; IBR approved for §§ 8.217; 8.220.

(c) ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E), Conformity assessment—Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services, First Edition, 2012-09-15; IBR approved for § 8.220.

Note 1 to § 8.201:

The standards listed in this section are co-published with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. De la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland; www.iso.org ; Tel.: + 41 22 749 01 11; Fax: + 41 22 733 34 30; email: [email protected] .

Note 2 to § 8.201:

ISO publications can also be purchased from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) through its NSSN operation ( www.nssn.org ), at Customer Service, American National Standards Institute, 25 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036, telephone (212) 642-4900.

In order to elevate the Nation's cybersecurity posture and provide consumers with assurances regarding their baseline cybersecurity, thereby addressing risks of harmful radiofrequency interference to and from consumer internet-connected (Internet of Things or IoT) products the Federal Communications Commission establishes a labeling program for consumer IoT products.

(a) Affiliate. For purposes of this subpart and the IoT labeling program, an affiliate is defined as a person that (directly or indirectly) owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with, another person. For purposes of this subpart, the term own means to own an equity interest (or the equivalent thereof) of more than 10 percent.

(b) Consumer IoT products. IoT products intended primarily for consumer use, rather than enterprise or industrial use. Consumer IoT products exclude medical devices regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and excludes motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

(c) Cybersecurity Label Administrator (CLA). An accredited third-party entity that is recognized and authorized by the Commission to manage and administer the labeling program in accordance with the Commission's rules in this subpart.

(d) Cybersecurity Testing Laboratory (CyberLAB). Accredited third-party entities recognized and authorized by a CLA to assess consumer IoT products for compliance with requirements of the labeling program.

(e) Cyber Trust Mark. A visual indicator indicating a consumer IoT product complies with program requirements of the labeling program and the Commission's minimum cybersecurity requirements in this subpart.

(f) FCC IoT Label. A binary label displayable with a consumer IoT product complying with program requirements of the labeling program, the binary label bearing the Cyber Trust Mark, and a scannable QR code that directs consumers to a registry containing further information on the complying consumer IoT product.

(g) Intentional radiator. A device that intentionally generates and emits radiofrequency energy by radiation or induction.

(h) Internet-connected device. A device capable of connecting to the internet and exchanging data with other devices or centralized systems over the internet.

(i) IoT device. (1) An internet-connected device capable of intentionally emitting radiofrequency energy that has at least one transducer (sensor or actuator) for interacting directly with the physical world; coupled with

(2) At least one network interface ( e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) for interfacing with the digital world.

(j) IoT product. An IoT device and any additional product components ( e.g., backend, gateway, mobile app) that are necessary to use the IoT device beyond basic operational features, including data communications links to components outside this scope but excluding those external components and any external third-party components that are outside the manufacturer's control.

(k) Labeling program. A voluntary program for consumer IoT products that allows a complying consumer IoT product to display an FCC IoT Label.

(l) Lead Administrator. A CLA selected from among Cybersecurity Label Administrators (CLAs) to be responsible for carrying out additional administrative responsibilities of the labeling program.

(m) Product components. Hardware devices, plus supporting components that generally fall into three main types per NISTIR 8425: specialty networking/gateway hardware ( e.g., a hub within the system where the IoT device is used); companion application software ( e.g., a mobile app for communicating with the IoT device); and backends ( e.g., a cloud service, or multiple services, that may store and/or process data from the IoT device). Should a product component also support other IoT products through alternative features and interfaces, these alternative features and interfaces may, through risk-assessment, be considered as separate from and not part of the IoT product for purposes of authorization.

(n) Registry. Information presented to consumers about consumer IoT products that comply with the program requirements of the labeling program, the registry is publicly accessible through a link from the QR Code of the FCC IoT Label displayed with the complying consumer IoT product, and containing information about the complying consumer IoT product, manufacturer of the complying Start Printed Page 61274 consumer IoT product, and other information as required by the labeling program.

All consumer IoT products produced by sources listed in this subpart are prohibited from obtaining use of the FCC IoT Label under this subpart. This includes:

(a) All communications equipment on the Covered List, as established pursuant to 47 CFR 1.50002 ;

(b) All IoT products containing IoT devices or product components produced by entities listed in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section;

(c) IoT devices or IoT products produced by any entity, its affiliates, or subsidiaries identified on the Covered List as producing covered equipment, as established pursuant to 47 CFR 1.50002 ;

(d) IoT devices or IoT products produced by any entity, its affiliates, or subsidiaries identified on the Department of Commerce's Entity List, 15 CFR part 744 , supplement no. 4, and/or the Department of Defense's List of Chinese Military Companies, U.S. Department of Defense, Entities Identified as Chinese Military Companies Operating in the United States in Accordance with Section 1260H of the William M. (“Mac”) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 ( Pub. L. 116-283 ), Tranche 2 (2022), https://media.defense.gov/​2022/​Oct/​05/​2003091659/​-1/​-1/​0/​1260H%20COMPANIES.PDF . and

(e) Products produced by any entity owned or controlled by or affiliated with any person or entity that has been suspended or debarred from receiving Federal procurements or financial awards, to include all entities and individuals published as ineligible for award on the General Service Administration's System for Award Management.

(a) Cybersecurity labeling authorization is an authorization issued by a Cybersecurity Label Administrator (CLA) and authorized under the authority of the Commission, which grants an applicant of a complying consumer IoT product to display the FCC IoT Label on the relevant packaging for the complying consumer product, based on compliance with the program requirements as determined by the CLA.

(b) Cybersecurity labeling authorization attaches to all units of the complying consumer IoT product subsequently marketed by the grantee that are identical (see § 8.206) to the sample determined to comply with the program requirements except for permissive changes or other variations authorized by the Commission.

As used in this subpart, the term identical means identical within the variation that can be expected to arise as a result of quantity production techniques.

In the case of a complying consumer IoT product that has been granted authorization to use the FCC IoT Label, the applicant to whom that grant of cybersecurity labeling authorization is issued is responsible for continued compliance with the program requirements for continued use of the FCC IoT Label.

(a) An application to certify the consumer IoT product as being compliant with the labeling program shall be submitted in writing to a Cybersecurity Labeling Administrator (CLA) in the form and format prescribed by the Commission. Each application shall be accompanied by all information required by this subpart.

(b) The applicant shall provide to the CLA in the application all information that the CLA requires to determine compliance with the program requirements of the labeling program.

(c) The applicant will provide a declaration under penalty of perjury that all of the following are true and correct:

(1) The product for which the applicant seeks to use the FCC IoT Label through cybersecurity certification meets all the requirements of the IoT labeling program.

(2) The applicant is not identified as an entity producing covered communications equipment on the Covered List, established pursuant to 47 CFR 1.50002 .

(3) The product is not comprised of “covered” equipment on the Covered List.

(4) The product is not produced by any entity, its affiliates, or subsidiaries identified on the Department of Commerce's Entity List, 15 CFR part 744 , supplement no. 4, and/or the Department of Defense's List of Chinese Military Companies, U.S. Department of Defense, Entities Identified as Chinese Military Companies Operating in the United States in Accordance with Section 1260H of the William M. (“Mac”) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 ( Pub. L. 116-283 ), Tranche 2 (2022), https://media.defense.gov/​2022/​Oct/​05/​2003091659/​-1/​-1/​0/​1260H%20COMPANIES.PDF ; and

(5) The product is not owned or controlled by or affiliated with any person or entity that has been suspended or debarred from receiving Federal procurements or financial awards, to include all entities and individuals published as ineligible for award on the General Service Administration's System for Award Management as described in § 8.204.

(6) The applicant has taken every reasonable measure to create a securable product.

(7) The applicant will, until the support period end date disclosed in the registry, diligently identify critical vulnerabilities in our products and promptly issue software updates correcting them, unless such updates are not reasonably needed to protect against security failures.

(8) The applicant will not elsewhere disclaim or otherwise attempt to limit the substantive or procedural enforceability of this declaration or of any other representations and commitments made on the FCC IoT Label or made for purposes of acquiring or maintaining authorization to use it.

(d) The applicant shall provide a written and signed declaration to the CLA that all statements it makes in the application are true and correct to the best of its knowledge and belief.

(e) Each application, including amendments thereto, and related statements of fact and authorizations required by the Commission, shall be signed by the applicant or their authorized agent.

(f) The applicant declares the product is reasonably secure and will be updated through minimum support period for the product and the end date of the support period must be disclosed.

(g) The applicant shall declare under penalty of perjury that the consumer IoT product for which the applicant is applying for participation in the labeling program is not prohibited pursuant to § 8.204.

(h) If the identified listed sources under § 8.204 are modified after the date of the declaration required by paragraph (c) of this section but prior to grant of authorization to use the FCC IoT Label, then the applicant shall provide a new declaration as required by paragraph (c).

(i) The applicant shall designate an agent located in the United States for the purpose of accepting service of process on behalf of the applicant.

(1) The applicant shall provide a written attestation: Start Printed Page 61275

(i) Signed by both the applicant and its designated agent for service of process, if different from the applicant;

(ii) Acknowledging the applicant's consent and the designated agent's obligation to accept service of process in the United States for matters related to the applicable product, and at the physical U.S. address and email address of its designated agent; and

(iii) Acknowledging the applicant's acceptance of its obligation to maintain an agent for service of process in the United States for no less than one year after either the grantee has permanently terminated all marketing and importation of the applicable equipment within the U.S., or the conclusion of any Commission-related administrative or judicial proceeding involving the product, whichever is later.

(2) An applicant located in the United States may designate itself as the agent for service of process.

(j) Technical test data submitted to the CLA shall be signed by the person who performed or supervised the tests. The person signing the test data shall attest to the accuracy of such data. The CLA may require the person signing the test data to submit a statement showing that they are qualified to make or supervise the required measurements.

(k) Signed, as used in this section, means an original handwritten signature or any symbol executed or adopted by the applicant or CLA with the intent that such symbol be a signature, including symbols formed by computer-generated electronic impulses.

(a) A CLA will grant cybersecurity labeling authorization if it finds from an examination of the application and supporting data, or other matter which it may officially notice, that the consumer IoT product complies with the program requirements.

(b) Grants will be made in writing showing the effective date of the grant.

(c) Cybersecurity certification shall not attach to any product, nor shall any use of the Cyber Trust Mark be deemed effective, until the application has been granted.

(d) Grants will be effective from the date of authorization.

(e) The grant shall identify the CLA granting the authorization and the Commission as the issuing authority.

(f) In cases of a dispute, the Commission will be the final arbiter.

(a) An application that is not in accordance with the provisions of this subpart may be dismissed.

(b) Any application, upon written request signed by the applicant or their agent, may be dismissed prior to a determination granting or denying the authorization requested.

(c) If an applicant is requested to submit additional documents or information and fails to submit the requested material within the specified time period, the application may be dismissed.

If the CLA is unable to make the findings specified in § 8.209(a), it will deny the application. Notification of the denial to the applicant will include a statement of the reasons for the denial.

(a) Seeking review from a CLA. Any party aggrieved by an action taken by a CLA must first seek review from the CLA. The CLA should respond to appeals of their decisions in a timely manner and within 10 business days of receipt of a request for review.

(b) Seeking review from the Commission. A party aggrieved by an action taken by a CLA may, after seeking review by the CLA, seek review from the Commission.

(c) Filing deadlines. (1) An aggrieved party seeking review of a CLA decision by the CLA shall submit such a request within sixty (60) days from the date the CLA issues a decision. Such request shall be deemed submitted when received by the CLA.

(2) An aggrieved party seeking review of a CLA decision by the Commission shall file such a request within sixty (60) days from the date the CLA issues a decision on the party's request for review. Parties must adhere to the time periods for filing oppositions and replies set forth in 47 CFR 1.45 .

(d) Review by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau or the Commission. (1) Requests for review of CLA decisions that are submitted to the Federal Communications Commission shall be considered and acted upon by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau; provided, however, that requests for review that raise novel questions of fact, law or policy shall be considered by the full Commission.

(2) An aggrieved party may seek review of a decision issued under delegated authority by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau pursuant to the rules set forth in 47 CFR part 1 .

(e) Standard of review. (1) The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau shall conduct de novo review of request for review of decisions issued by the CLA.

(2) The Federal Communications Commission shall conduct de novo review of requests for review of decisions by the CLA that involve novel questions of fact, law, or policy; provided, however, that the Commission shall not conduct de novo review of decisions issued by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau under delegated authority.

(f) Time periods for Commission review of CLA decisions. (1) The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau shall, within forty-five (45) days, take action in response to a request for review of a CLA decision that is properly before it. The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau may extend the time period for taking action on a request for review of a CLA decision for a period of up to ninety days. The Commission may also at any time, extend the time period for taking action of a request for review of a CLA decision pending before the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

(2) The Commission shall issue a written decision in response to a request for review of a CLA decision that involves novel questions of fact, law, or policy within forty-five (45) days. The Commission may extend the time period for taking action on the request for review of a CLA decision. The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau also may extend action on a request for review of a CLA decision for a period of up to ninety days.

(g) No authorization pending CLA review. While a party seeks review of a CLA decision, they are not authorized to use the FCC IoT Label until the Commission issues a final decision authorizing their use of the FCC IoT Label.

(a) A grant of authorization to use the FCC IoT Label remains effective until set aside, revoked or withdrawn, rescinded, surrendered, or a termination date is otherwise established by the Commission.

(b) No person shall, in any advertising matter, brochure, etc., use or make reference to the FCC IoT Label or the Cyber Trust Mark in a deceptive or misleading manner.

When a complaint is filed directly with the Commission or submitted to the Commission by the Lead Administrator or other party concerning a consumer IoT product being non-compliant with the labeling program, and the Commission determines that the Start Printed Page 61276 complaint is justified, the Commission may require the grantee to investigate such complaint and report the results of such investigation to the Commission within 20 days. The report shall also indicate what action if any has been taken or is proposed to be taken by the grantee to correct the defect, both in terms of future production and with reference to articles in the possession of users, sellers, and distributors.

(a) For complying consumer IoT products granted authorization to use the FCC IoT Label, the grantee shall maintain the records listed as follows:

(1) A record of the original design and specifications and all changes that have been made to the complying consumer IoT product that may affect compliance with the standards and testing procedures of this subpart.

(2) A record of the procedures used for production inspection and testing to ensure conformance with the standards and testing procedures of this subpart.

(3) A record of the test results that demonstrate compliance with the appropriate regulations in this chapter.

(b) Records shall be retained for a two-year period after the marketing of the associated product has been permanently discontinued, or until the conclusion of an investigation or a proceeding if the grantee is officially notified that an investigation or any other administrative proceeding involving its product has been instituted.

(a) Grant of authorization to use the FCC IoT Label is automatically terminated by notice of the Bureau following submission of a report as specified in § 8.214 has not been adequately corrected:

(1) For false statements or representations made either in the application or in materials or response submitted in connection therewith or in records required to be kept by § 8.215.

(2) If upon subsequent inspection or operation it is determined that the consumer IoT product does not conform to the pertinent technical requirements in this subpart or to the representations made in the original application.

(3) Because of conditions coming to the attention of the Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant authorization to use the FCC IoT Label.

(4) Because the grantee or affiliate has been listed as described in § 8.204.

(b) [Reserved]

(a) A CyberLAB providing testing of products seeking a grant of authorization to use the FCC IoT Label shall be accredited by a recognized accreditation body, which must attest that the CyberLAB has demonstrated:

(1) Technical expertise in cybersecurity testing and conformity assessment of IoT devices and products.

(2) Compliance with accreditation requirements based on ISO/IEC 17025 (incorporated by reference, see § 8.201).

(3) Knowledge of FCC rules and procedures associated with products compliance testing and cybersecurity certification.

(4) Necessary equipment, facilities, and personnel to conduct cybersecurity testing and conformity assessment of IoT devices and products.

(5) Documented procedures for conformity assessment.

(6) Implementation of controls to eliminate potential conflicts of interests, particularly with regard to commercially sensitive information.

(7) That the CyberLAB is not an organization, its affiliates, or subsidiaries identified by the listed sources of prohibition under § 8.204.

(8) That it has certified the truth and accuracy of all information it has submitted to support its accreditation.

(b) Once accredited or recognized the CyberLAB will be periodically audited and reviewed to ensure they continue to comply with the requirements of the ISO/IEC 17025 standard.

(c) The Lead Administrator will verify that the CyberLAB is not listed in any of the lists in § 8.204.

(d) The Lead Administrator will maintain a list of accredited CyberLABs that it has recognized, and make publicly available the list of accredited CyberLAB. Inclusion of a CyberLAB on the accredited list does not constitute Commission endorsement of that facility. Recognition afforded to a CyberLAB under the labeling program will be automatically terminated for entities that are subsequently placed on the Covered List, listed sources of prohibition under § 8.204, or of it, its affiliate, or subsidiary is owned or controlled by a foreign adversary country defined by the Department of Commerce in 15 CFR 7.4 .

(e) In order to be recognized and included on the list in paragraph (d) of this section, the accrediting organization must submit the information in paragraphs (e)(1) through (9) of this section to the Lead Administrator:

(1) Laboratory name, location of test site(s), mailing address and contact information;

(2) Name of accrediting organization;

(3) Scope of laboratory accreditation;

(4) Date of expiration of accreditation;

(5) Designation number;

(6) FCC Registration Number (FRN);

(7) A statement as to whether or not the laboratory performs testing on a contract basis;

(8) For laboratories outside the United States, details of the arrangement under which the accreditation of the laboratory is recognized; and

(9) Other information as requested by the Commission.

(f) A laboratory that has been accredited with a scope covering the measurements required for the types of IoT products that it will test shall be deemed competent to test and submit test data for IoT products subject to cybersecurity certification. Such a laboratory shall be accredited by a Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau-recognized accreditation organization based on ISO/IEC 17025. The organization accrediting the laboratory must be recognized by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to perform such accreditation based on ISO/IEC 17011 (incorporated by reference, see § 8.201). The frequency for reassessment of the test facility and the information that is required to be filed or retained by the testing party shall comply with the requirements established by the accrediting organization, but shall occur on an interval not to exceed two years.

(a) A party wishing to become a laboratory accreditation body recognized by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB or Bureau) must submit a written request to the Chief of PSHSB requesting such recognition. PSHSB will make a determination based on the information provided in support of the request for recognition.

(b) Applicants shall provide the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section as evidence of their credentials and qualifications to perform accreditation of laboratories that test equipment to Commission requirements, consistent with the requirements of § 8.217(e). PSHSB may request additional information, or showings, as needed, to determine the applicant's credentials and qualifications.

(1) Successful completion of an ISO/IEC 17011 peer review, such as being a signatory to an accreditation agreement that is acceptable to the Commission.

(2) Experience with the accreditation of conformity assessment testing laboratories to ISO/IEC 17025. Start Printed Page 61277

(3) Accreditation personnel/assessors with specific technical experience on the Commission cybersecurity certification rules and requirements.

(4) Procedures and policies developed for the accreditation of testing laboratories for FCC cybersecurity certification programs.

(a) An accredited third-party entity wishing to become a Cybersecurity Label Administrator (CLA) must file a written application with the Commission. The Commission may approve the written application for the accredited third-party entity to be recognized and authorized by the Commission as a CLA to manage and administer the labeling program by meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. An accredited third-party entity is recognized and authorized by the Commission to manage and administer the labeling program in accordance with the Commission's rules in this subpart.

(b) In the United States, the Commission, in accordance with its procedures, allows qualified accrediting bodies to accredit CLAs based on ISO/IEC 17065 and other qualification criteria. CLAs shall comply with the requirements in § 8.220.

(a) In general. CLAs designated by the Commission, or designated by another authority recognized by the Commission, shall comply with the requirements of this section. Each entity seeking authority to act as a CLA must file an application with the Commission for consideration by PSHSB, which includes a description of its organization structure, an explanation of how it will avoid personal and organizational conflict when processing applications, a description of its processes for evaluating applications seeking authority to use the FCC IoT Label, and a demonstration of expertise that will be necessary to effectively serve as a CLA including, but not limited to, the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Methodology for reviewing applications. (1) A CLA's methodology for reviewing applications shall be based on type testing as identified in ISO/IEC 17065 (incorporated by reference, see § 8.201).

(2) A CLA's grant of authorization to use the FCC IoT Label shall be based on the application with all the information specified in this part. The CLA shall review the application to determine compliance with the Commission's requirements in this subpart and shall issue a grant of product cybersecurity certification in accordance with § 8.208.

(c) Criteria for designation. (1) To be designated as a CLA under this section, an entity shall demonstrate cybersecurity expertise and capabilities in addition to industry knowledge of IoT and IoT labeling requirements.

(2) The entity shall demonstrate expert knowledge of National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) cybersecurity guidance, including but not limited to NIST's recommended criteria and labeling program approaches for cybersecurity labeling of consumer IoT products.

(3) The entity shall demonstrate expert knowledge of FCC rules and procedures associated with product compliance testing and certification.

(4) The entity shall demonstrate knowledge of Federal law and guidance governing the security and privacy of agency information systems.

(5) The entity shall demonstrate an ability to securely handle large volumes of information and demonstrate internal security practices.

(6) To expedite initial deployment of the FCC labeling program, the Commission will accept and conditionally approve applications from entities seeking to be designated as a CLA provided they commit to obtain accreditation pursuant to all the requirements associated with ISO/IEC 17065 with the appropriate scope within six (6) months of the effective date by the adopted standards and testing procedures and otherwise meet the FCC's IoT Labeling Program requirements. The entity must also demonstrate implementation of controls to eliminate actual or potential conflicts of interests (including both personal and organizational), particularly with regard to commercially sensitive information. The Bureau will finalize the entity's application upon receipt and demonstration of ISO/IEC 17065 accreditation with the appropriate scope.

(7) The entity is not owned or controlled by or affiliated with any entity identified on the Commission's Covered List, listed sources of prohibition under § 8.204, or of it, its affiliate, or subsidiary is owned or controlled by a foreign adversary country defined by the Department of Commerce in 15 CFR 7.4 .

(8) The entity must demonstrate it has implemented controls to eliminate actual or potential conflicts of interests (including both personal and organizational), particularly with regard to commercially sensitive information, to include but not limited to, remaining impartial and unbiased and prevent them from giving preferential treatment to certain applications ( e.g., application line jumping) and from implementing heightened scrutiny of applications from entities not members or otherwise aligned with the CLA.

(d) External resources. (1) In accordance with the provisions of ISO/IEC 17065 the evaluation of a product, or a portion thereof, may be performed by bodies that meet the applicable requirements of ISO/IEC 17025, in accordance with the applicable provisions of ISO/IEC 17065 for external resources (outsourcing). Evaluation is the selection of applicable requirements and the determination that those requirements are met. Evaluation may be performed using internal CLA resources or external (outsourced) resources.

(2) A CLA shall not outsource review or decision activities.

(3) When external resources are used to provide the evaluation function, including the testing of products subject to labeling, the CLA shall be responsible for the evaluation and shall maintain appropriate oversight of the external resources used to ensure reliability of the evaluation. Such oversight shall include periodic audits of products that have been tested and other activities as required in ISO/IEC 17065 when a CLA uses external resources for evaluation.

(e) Commission approves a CLA. (1) The Commission will approve as a CLA:

(i) Any entity in the United States that meets the requirements of this section.

(ii) The Commission will not approve as a CLA any organization, its affiliates, or subsidiaries listed in the listed sources of prohibition under § 8.204.

(2) The Commission will withdraw its approval of a CLA if the CLA's designation or accreditation is withdrawn, if the Commission determines there is just cause for withdrawing the approval, or upon request of the CLA. The Commission will limit the scope of products that can be certified by a CLA if its accreditor limits the scope of its accreditation or if the Commission determines there is good cause to do so. The Commission will notify a CLA in writing of its intention to withdraw or limit the scope of the CLA's approval and provide at least 60 days for the CLA to respond.

(3) The Commission will notify a CLA in writing when it has concerns or evidence that the CLA is not carrying out its responsibilities under the labeling program in accordance with the Commission's rules in this subpart and policies and request that it explain and correct any apparent deficiencies. Start Printed Page 61278

(4) The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau shall provide notice to the CLA that the Bureau proposes to terminate the CLA's authority and provide the CLA a reasonable opportunity to respond (not more than 20 days) before reaching a decision on possible termination.

(5) If the Commission withdraws its recognition of a CLA, all grants issued by that CLA will remain valid unless specifically set aside or revoked by the Commission.

(6) A list of recognized CLAs will be published by the Commission.

(f) Scope of responsibility. (1) A CLA shall receive and evaluate applications and supporting data requesting authority to use the FCC IoT Label on the product subject to the application.

(2) A CLA shall grant authorization to use the FCC IoT Label with a complying consumer IoT product in accordance with the Commission's rules in this subpart and policies.

(3) A CLA shall accept test data from any Lead Administrator-recognized accredited CyberLAB, subject to the requirements in ISO/IEC 17065 and shall not unnecessarily repeat tests.

(4) A CLA may establish and assess fees for processing applications and other Commission-required tasks.

(5) A CLA may only act on applications that it has received or which it has issued a certification authorizing use of the FCC IoT Label.

(6) A CLA shall dismiss an application that is not in accordance with the provisions of this subpart or when the applicant requests dismissal, and may dismiss an application if the applicant does not submit additional information or test samples requested by the CLA.

(7) A CLA shall ensure that manufacturers make all required information accessible to the IoT registry.

(8) A CLA shall participate in a consumer education campaign in coordination with the Lead Administrator.

(9) A CLA shall receive complaints alleging a product bearing the FCC IoT Label does not support the cybersecurity criteria conveyed by the Cyber Trust Mark and refer these complaints to the Lead Administrator which will notify the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

(10) A CLA may not:

(i) Make policy, interpret unclear provisions of the statute or rules, or interpret the intent of Congress;

(ii) Grant a waiver of the rules in this subpart; or

(iii) Take enforcement actions.

(11) All CLA actions are subject to Commission review.

(g) Post-market surveillance requirements. (1) In accordance with ISO/IEC 17065, a CLA shall perform appropriate post-market surveillance activities. These activities shall be based on type testing a certain number of samples of the total number of product types for which the CLA has certified use of the Label.

(2) PSHSB may request that a grantee of authority to use the FCC IoT Label submit a product sample directly to the CLA that evaluated the grantee's application as part of the post market surveillance. Any product samples requested by the Commission and tested by the CLA will be counted toward a minimum number of samples that the CLA must test to meet its post market surveillance requirements.

(3) A CLA may also request a grantee submit samples of products that the CLA has certified to use the FCC IoT Label directly to the CLA.

(4) If during post market surveillance of a complying consumer IoT product, a CLA determines that the product fails to comply with the technical regulations (or other FCC requirements) for that product, the CLA shall immediately notify the grantee and the Commission in writing of its findings. The grantee shall provide a report to the CLA describing the actions taken to correct the situation, as provided in § 8.216, and the CLA shall provide a report of these actions to the Commission within 30 days.

(5) CLAs shall submit periodic reports to the Commission of their post-market surveillance activities and findings in a format and by a date specified by the Commission.

(a) Establishing a Lead Administrator. If more than one qualified entity is selected by the Commission to be a CLA, the Commission will select a Lead Administrator. The Lead Administrator shall:

(1) Interface with the Commission on behalf of the CLAs, including but not limited to submitting to the Bureau all complaints alleging a product bearing the FCC IoT Label does not meet the requirements of the Commission's labeling program;

(2) Coordinate with CLAs and moderate stakeholder meetings;

(3) Accept, review, and approve or deny applications from labs seeking recognition as a lab authorized to perform the conformity testing necessary to support an application for authority to affix the FCC IoT Label, and maintain a publicly available list of Lead Administrator-recognized labs and a list of labs that have lost their recognition;

(4) Within 90 days of election as Lead Administrator, the Lead Administrator will, in collaboration with the CLAs and stakeholders ( e.g., cyber experts from industry, government, and academia):

(i) Submit to the Bureau recommendations identifying and/or developing the technical standards and testing procedures for the Commission to consider with regard to at least one class of IoT products eligible for the IoT labeling program. The Bureau will evaluate the recommendations, subject to any required public notice and comment, incorporate them by reference into the Commission's rules in this subpart;

(ii) Submit to the Bureau a recommendation on how often a given class of IoT products must renew their request for authority to bear the FCC IoT Label, which may be dependent on the type of product, and that such a recommendation be submitted in connection with the relevant standards recommendations for an IoT product or class of IoT products. The Bureau will evaluate the recommendations, and if the Bureau approves of the recommendations, subject to any required public notice and comment, incorporate them by reference into the Commission's rules in this subpart;

(iii) Submit to the Bureau a recommendation on procedures for post market surveillance by the CLAs. The Bureau will evaluate the recommendations, and if the Bureau approves of the recommendations, subject to any required public notice and comment, incorporate them by reference into the Commission's rules in this subpart;

(iv) Make recommendations to the Bureau with regard to updates to the registry including whether the registry should be in additional languages, and if so, to recommend specific languages for inclusion; and

(v) Submit to the Bureau recommendations on the design of the FCC IoT Label, including but not limited to labeling design and placement ( e.g., size and white spaces, product packaging) and whether to include the product support end date on labels for certain products or category of products. The Bureau will evaluate the recommendations, and if the Bureau approves of the recommendations, subject to any required public notice and comment, incorporate them by reference into the Commission's rules in this subpart;

(5) Within 45 days of publication of updates or changes to NIST guidelines, or adoption by NIST of new guidelines, Start Printed Page 61279 recommend in collaboration with CLAs and other stakeholders any appropriate modifications to the labeling program standards and testing procedures to stay aligned with the NIST guidelines;

(6) Submit to the Commission reports on CLAs' post-market surveillance activities and findings in the format and by the date specified by Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau;

(7) Develop in collaboration with stakeholders a consumer education campaign, submit the plan to the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, and participate in consumer education;

(8) Receive complaints about the labeling program, including but not limited to consumer complaints about the registry and coordinate with manufacturers to resolve any technical problems associated with consumers accessing the information in the registry;

(9) Facilitate coordination between CLAs; and

(10) Submit to the Commission any other reports upon request of the Commission or as required by Commission rules in this subpart.

(b) Criteria for designation. In addition to completing the CLA application information, entities seeking to be the Lead Administrator will submit a description of how they will execute the duties of the Lead Administrator, including:

(1) Their previous experience in IoT cybersecurity;

(2) What role, if any, they have played in IoT labeling;

(3) Their capacity to execute the Lead Administrator duties;

(4) How they would engage and collaborate with stakeholders to identify or develop the Bureau recommendations;

(5) A proposed consumer education campaign; and

(6) Additional information the applicant believes demonstrates why they should be the Lead Administrator.

(a) A grantee of authority to use the FCC IoT Label shall provide information about the complying consumer IoT product to the public. Information supplied by grantees shall be made available in a dynamic, decentralized, publicly accessible registry through a common Application Programming Interface (API) that is secure by design.

(b) A grantee of authority to use the FCC IoT Label shall publish the following information through the common API in the Registry:

(1) Product Name;

(2) Manufacturer name;

(3) Date the product received authorization ( i.e., cybersecurity certification) to affix the label and current status of the authorization (if applicable);

(4) Name and contact information of the CLA that authorized use of the FCC IoT Label;

(5) Name of the lab that conducted the conformity testing;

(6) Instructions on how to change the default password (specifically state if the default password cannot be changed);

(7) Information (or link) for additional information on how to configure the device securely;

(8) Information as to whether software updates and patches are automatic and how to access security updates/patches if they are not automatic;

(9) The date until which the entity promises to diligently identify critical vulnerabilities in the product and promptly issue software updates correcting them, unless such an update is not reasonably needed to protect against cybersecurity failures ( i.e., the minimum support period); alternatively, a statement that the device is unsupported and that the purchaser should not rely on the manufacturer to release security updates;

(10) Disclosure of whether the manufacturer maintains a Hardware Bill of Materials (HBOM) and/or a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM); and

(11) Additional data elements that the Bureau deems necessary.

1.  Motor Vehicle “means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.” 49 U.S.C. 30102(7) .

2.  For purposes of the IoT Labeling Program, the NISTIR 8425 scoping definition of “components” falls into three main types: Specialty networking/gateway hardware ( e.g., a hub within the system where the IoT device is used); Companion application software ( e.g., a mobile app for communicating with the IoT device); and Backends ( e.g., a cloud service, or multiple services, that may store and/or process data from the IoT device). See NISTIR 8425 at 2. Our use of this scoping definition of “components” is intended only to apply to the IoT Labeling program. We note that Commission rules use the term “components” in a variety or contexts and different rule provisions, and we are not intending to affect the use of that term in those other contexts.

2.  To further clarify, nothing in this item prohibits manufacturers from allowing product owners from installing the software of their choice, from disabling security features, or from replacing or modifying components of a product, including the firmware and software. An IoT manufacturer cannot be held responsible for the owner's decision to make such changes, just as a traditional product manufacturer cannot be responsible for the actions of a consumer who modifies the core mechanisms of a product and thereby risks rendering it unsafe. However, we reiterate that in order to be authorized to use the FCC IoT Label, manufacturers must meet the requirements of the program.

3.  There are many types IoT devices and products, which may be divided into various categories or classes based on their purpose, application, and functionality. These classes of IoT devices and products include smart home ( e.g., smart thermostats, smart lights, smart locks, smart cameras), wearables ( e.g., fitness trackers, smart watches), and Healthcare ( e.g., remote patient monitoring devices, smart medical equipment). It is worth noting that not all IoT devices or products are created equal, in terms of features, security and the level of risk they present. Additionally, from security standpoint, an IoT product that is appropriate for consumer or home use may not be suitable for industrial or enterprise environment. These differences suggest the need for different security standards that distinguish between low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk applications. Our approach to identifying the specific cybersecurity standards to apply enables us to appropriately account for that in the case of particular wireless consumer products (or categories of such products) in our initial implementation of the IoT Labeling Program.

4.  The organization(s) accrediting the prospective Label Administrators and testing labs must meet the requirements and conditions in ISO/IEC 17011. See 47 CFR 8.910(b)(1) ISO/IEC 17011:2004(E), “Conformity assessment—General requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies,” First Edition, 2004-09-01, IBR approved for §§ 8.217(e) and 8.218(b).

5.  There appeared to be some confusion in the record with the Commission's use of the term Cybersecurity Labeling Authorization Bodies. Specifically, the ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB) recommended the Commission reconsider the use of the term “CyberLAB” as the “implication that such organizations are laboratories could create market confusion.” ANAB Reply at 2. We disagree that the term CyberLAB may be confusing because these organizations are, in fact, laboratories/testing bodies that will be testing products to determine compliance with applicable standards. The CyberLABs, however, are not “certification bodies.” Rather, the entity that will be authorizing an applicant to use the Cyber Trust Mark on their product is the CLA, as described below. To ensure there is no confusion, the Commission has changed the term from Cybersecurity Labeling “Authorization Bodies” as these terms are reserved for accreditation bodies, to Cybersecurity Testing Laboratories, reflecting that the function of these labs is for testing and generating reports, and not certifying or issuing a label. We continue to use the short-form term “CyberLAB” to refer to these testing labs.

6.  If the Lead Administrator, in addition to its administrative duties, intends to offer lab testing service (CLA-run lab), it must submit an application with PSHSB seeking FCC recognition as a lab authorized to perform conformity testing to support an application for authority to affix the FCC IoT Label. The Lead Administrator is not authorized to recognize its own cybersecurity testing lab. If approved by PSHSB, the Lead Administrator will add the name of its lab to the list of recognized labs.

7.  This process does not foreclose the ability of consumers to file an informal complaint in accordance with the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 1.716 through 1.719 . In the event an informal complaint is filed with the Commission, the complaint will be forwarded to the Lead Administrator for investigation and/or referral to the issuing CLA.

8.  As below, we emphasize the importance of leveraging existing expertise in this space, and as such adopt as a criterion for consideration in selecting the lead administrator the ability to convene and develop consensus among stakeholders.

9.  This approach necessitates a mechanism for the Commission to recognize administrators, and we accordingly adopt a rule doing so. See 47 CFR 8.219 . We model our approach on analogous elements of our equipment authorization rules, with which the Commission and industry have substantial experience, and which have proven workable in practice. See 47 CFR 2.949 . We delegate to PSHSB and OMD authority to take any necessary steps, including adoption of additional procedures and any applicable fees (pursuant to any required public notice and comment), as necessary to ensure compliance with the Communications Act with respect to any rules adopted here that contemplate the filing of applications directly with the Commission. 47 U.S.C. 158(c) .

10.  The scope of CLA's ISO/IEC 17065 certification includes certifying IoT products and devices for compliance with FCC cybersecurity standards.

11.  Consistent with standard practice for accreditation, the organization accrediting the CLAs must be recognized by the Bureau to perform such accreditation based on International Standard ISO/IEC 17011.

12.  Because of the public safety importance of a CLA having the requisite qualifications and adhering to our rules when evaluating requests to use the FCC IoT Label, this process should proceed appropriately expeditiously to minimize any periods of time where a CLA continues to operate in that capacity once concerns have come to PSHSB's attention. In particular, PSHSB shall provide notice to the CLA that the Bureau proposes to terminate the CLA's authority and provide the CLA a reasonable opportunity to respond (not more than 20 days) before reaching a decision on possible termination. PSHSB may suspend the CLA's ability to issues labeling authorizations during the pendency of such consideration if appropriate.

13.  We also agree with CTA in highlighting the importance of PSHSB's involvement in matters where the Lead Administrator and CLAs may share vested interests.

14.  We recognize the potential raised by ioXt Alliance for anticompetitive preferences in recommendations made to the Bureau if a CLA is chosen as Lead Administrator.

15.  To enable the Lead Administrator to compile a reliable and verifiable list, we require accredited CyberLABs to submit certain information to the Lead Administrator: (1) Laboratory name, location of test site(s), mailing address and contact information; (2) Name of accrediting organization; (3) Scope of laboratory accreditation; (4) Date of expiration of accreditation; (5) Designation number; (6) FCC Registration Number (FRN); (7) A statement as to whether or not the laboratory performs testing on a contract basis; (8) For laboratories outside the United States, details of the arrangement under which the accreditation of the laboratory is recognized; and (9) Other information as requested by the Commission.

16.  This approach necessitates a mechanism for the Commission to recognize lab accreditation bodies, and we accordingly adopt a rule doing so. See 47 CFR 8.218 . We model our approach on analogous elements of our equipment authorization rules, with which the Commission and industry have substantial experience, and which have proven workable in practice. See 47 CFR 2.949 . We delegate to PSHSB and OMD authority to take any necessary steps, including adoption of additional procedures and any applicable fees (pursuant to any required public notice and comment), as necessary to ensure compliance with the Communications Act with respect to any rules adopted here that contemplate the filing of applications directly with the Commission. 47 U.S.C 158(c) .

17.  Because of the public safety importance of a CyberLAB having the requisite qualifications and adhering to our rules when evaluating requests to use the FCC IoT Label, this process should proceed appropriately expeditiously to minimize any periods of time where a CyberLAB continues to operate in that capacity once concerns have come to PSHSB's attention. In particular, PSHSB shall provide notice to the CyberLAB that the Bureau proposes to terminate the CyberLAB's authority and provide the CyberLAB a reasonable opportunity to respond (not more than 20 days) before reaching a decision on possible termination. PSHSB may suspend the CLA's ability conduct product testing during the pendency of such consideration if appropriate.

18.  In addition to the discussion in the text, we adopt certain rules to support the administration and integrity of the IoT Labeling Program, including governing the designation of agents for service of process and governing required signatures. See 47 CFR 8.208(i) , (k) . We model our approach on analogous elements of our equipment authorization rules, with which the Commission and industry have substantial experience, and which have proven workable in practice. See 47 CFR 2.911(d)(7) , (f) .

19.  We recognize that many of the duties of the Lead Administrator benefit all the CLAs and the program as a whole, and we do not suggest that the costs associated with the duties of the Lead Administrator as described in the Order to be an exhaustive list of the shared costs we expect to be shared among CLAs as a whole.

20.  The issue of where the FCC IoT Label would be placed was raised in the record. We agree that flexibility in placement is important in instances where the consumer might not see the product's packaging, such as in larger appliances, before purchasing the product. We recognize that some types of products might be customarily displayed in ways that make a one-size-fits-all approach inappropriate. As such, we agree with the ioXt Alliance's suggestion that we consider how the label may be placed in ways that will be helpful to a consumer, such as through an in-store display, advertisement on a screen, or website.

21.  In addition to the declaration, the SBOM and HBOM will be made available upon request by the Commission, CyberLAB, and/or CLA.

22.  To enable a meaningful audit process it will be important to be able to review certain key records, which we consequently will require grantees to retain records regarding the original design and specifications and all changes that have been made to the relevant consumer IoT product that may affect compliance with the IoT Labeling Program requirements; a record of the procedures used for production inspection and testing; and a record of the test results that demonstrate compliance. See 47 CFR 8.215 . We model our approach on analogous elements of our equipment authorization rules, with which the Commission and industry have substantial experience, and which have proven workable in practice. See 47 CFR 2.938(a) , (f) .

23.  If necessary to accommodate the volume of auditing, a CLA may outsource some post-market surveillance testing to a recognized CyberLAB, but retains responsibility for the final review.

24.  In addition, to further help safeguard the integrity of the IoT Labeling Program and the FCC IoT Label, we codify a rule that prohibits any person from, in any advertising matter, brochure, etc., using or making reference to the FCC IoT Label or the Cyber Trust Mark in a deceptive or misleading manner. See 47 CFR 8.213(b) . We model our approach on analogous elements of our equipment authorization rules, with which the Commission and industry have substantial experience, and which have proven workable in practice. See 47 CFR 2.927(c) .

25.  $60 million = (15,000,000*$16*(15/60)) is the estimated value for 15 minutes of time savings nationwide.

26.  The Consumer Reports proposed registry architecture includes a dataset that can store images and PDFs as well as allows for device manufacturers, retailers, security researchers and administrators to access the platform. The registry, as adopted, does not include these features and therefore would not incur the costs to develop and maintain them.

27.  Because we conclude that section 302 of the Act authorizes our actions in the Order, we defer consideration of other sources of authority that the Communications Act may grant the Commission over this area.

28.  OMB has not yet issued final guidance.

[ FR Doc. 2024-14148 Filed 7-29-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information