Federal Communications Commission DA 25-488 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Luminys Systems Corporation ) ) ) ) ET Docket No. 25-85 FRN # 0035664952 SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Adopted: June 6, 2025 Released: June 6, 2025 By the Acting Chiefs, Office of Engineering and Technology and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. By this Second Order, the Acting Chiefs, Office of Engineering and Technology and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (the Bureaus) direct Luminys Systems Corporation (Luminys or Company) to show cause as to why the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) should not revoke equipment authorizations held by Luminys for FCC ID 2BHII-TG113A (Luminys equipment authorizations) on the basis of false statements or representations made in the applications for those equipment authorizations that the equipment is not prohibited from receiving an equipment authorization pursuant to section 2.903 of the Commission’s rules. Luminys Systems Corporation, ET Docket No. 25-85, Order to Show Cause, DA 25-128, (OET/PSHSB 2025) (Order to Show Cause). The Order to Show Cause is incorporated herein. Specifically, we direct Luminys to address the status of Dahua Technology USA, an affiliate of Luminys, as an entity named on the Covered List. II. BACKGROUND 2. On February 13, 2025, the Bureaus issued an order directing Luminys to show cause as to why the Commission should not revoke equipment authorizations held by Luminys for FCC ID 2BHII-TG113A on the basis of false statements or representations made in the applications for those equipment authorizations that the equipment is not prohibited from receiving an equipment authorization pursuant to section 2.903 of the Commission’s rules.2 Luminys, through counsel, provided a timely response to the Order to Show Cause on February 21, 2025. Response of Luminys Systems Corporation to Order to Show Cause, ET Docket No. 25-85, (filed February 21, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/1022166186804 (Luminys Response). Upon review of the information provided in that response, and further consideration of other information in the record, the Bureaus issue this Second Order to Show Cause. III. DISCUSSION 3. The Bureaus have tentatively determined that particular equipment for which Luminys obtained authorization pursuant to part 2 subpart J of the Commission’s rules This Order applies to equipment that the company is authorized to market or distribute within the United States pursuant to both the Commission’s Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity process under 47 CFR § 2.906 and the Certification process under 47 CFR § 2.907. See 47 CFR § 2.903(a). is covered communications equipment, and that the applications for equipment certification therefore contained false statements or representations that the equipment was not covered equipment or that Luminys is not identified on the Covered List as an entity producing covered equipment. Specifically, the Bureaus have tentatively determined that the Luminys equipment for which the authorizations that are subject to this proceeding were granted is produced by an affiliate of Dahua Technology Company, an entity named on the Covered List. Further, the Commission has not approved a compliance plan that would permit the grant of equipment authorizations for equipment produced by Dahua Technology Company or its subsidiaries of affiliates. See Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain through the Equipment Authorization Program; Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain through the Competitive Bidding Program, ET Docket No. 21232 and EA Docket No. 21233, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 13493, 13564, para. 180 (2022). 4. Dahua Technology Company is named on the Covered List. In August 2018, Congress enacted section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 NDAA), in which it, among other things, prohibited federal agencies from certain actions related to the procurement or use of “covered telecommunications equipment or services,” which includes certain equipment produced by “Dahua Technology Company” or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates. See Pub. L. 115-232, 132 Stat. 1918. In March 2020, the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act) was enacted, in part requiring that the Commission publish, and periodically update, a list of “covered communications equipment and services” that have been determined to pose national security risks, including “covered telecommunications equipment or services” as defined in section 889(f)(3) of the 2019 NDAA. See Pub. L. 116-124 at § 2(a), 134 Stat. 158 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1601(c)). The enactment of this legislation led to the Commission’s publication of the Covered List, which includes “Dahua Technology Company” as a named entity. See https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist. Congress did not provide any further specificity as to the identification of “Dahua Technology Company.”. 47 U.S.C. § 1601(c); Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89, Second Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 14284, 14312-16, paras. 60-70 (2020). 5. Under the Commission’s rules, each entity named on the Covered List as producing covered communications equipment must provide to the Commission information regarding that named entity’s associated entities (e.g., subsidiaries or affiliates) identified on the Covered List as producing covered communications equipment. 47 CFR § 2.903(b). On March 9, 2023, Dahua Technology USA filed with the Commission “[p]ursuant to Section 2.903(b) of the Commission’s rules … a list of its associated entities (e.g., subsidiaries or affiliates) that are identified on the FCC’s Covered List as producing ‘covered’ equipment.” Letter from Andrew D. Lipman, Counsel to Dahua Technology USA Inc., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (March 9, 2023) (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1031036500674/1) (March 9, 2023 filing). This list includes three entities: Zhejiang Dahua Vision Technology Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Huacheng Network Technology Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang HuaRay Technology Co., Ltd. About a year later, on April 9, 2024, Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. filed with the Commission, “[p]ursuant to Section 2.903(b)(3) of the Commission’s rules…” notification to the Commission that “Dahua Technology USA Inc. is no longer an affiliate of Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd.” Letter from Andrew D. Lipman, Counsel to Dahua Technology USA Inc., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (April 9, 2024) (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1031036500674/1) (April 9, 2024 filing). Section 2.903(b)(3) of the Commission’s rules requires that “[e]ach entity named on the Covered List as producing covered communications equipment must notify the Commission of any changes to the information” required to be reported under that section. It is not clear to the Bureaus what information changed -- the March 9, 2023 filing listed as an affiliate Zhejiang Dahua Vision Technology Co., Ltd., while the April 9, 2024 filing indicated the end of an affiliation with Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd., an entity that had not been previously reported to the Commission as an affiliate pursuant to the requirements of section 2.903(b) of the Commission’s rules. See Letter from Andrew D. Lipman, Counsel to Dahua Technology USA Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET Docket No. 21-232, at 1 (filed Oct. 19, 2022) (stating that Dahua Technology USA “is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd.”). See also Petition for Expedited Waiver by Dahua Technology USA Inc., ET Docket No. 21-232, at 1 (filed May 7, 2024), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10507741812775/1 (Dahua Waiver Petition). Neither Zhejiang Dahua Vision Technology Co., Ltd., nor Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd., had themselves initially filed any documentation pursuant to section 2.903(b). 6. The Bureaus, based on filings with the Commission by Dahua Technology USA in response to requirements imposed on entities named on the Covered List, have concluded that Dahua Technology USA is an entity named on the Covered List (i.e., that “Dahua Technology Company” includes, but is not limited to, “Dahua Technology USA”). Further, although Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd., has notified the Commission that Dahua Technology USA is “no longer a subsidiary or affiliate of Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd.,” it is not clear to the Bureaus what this change in relationship means with regard to the Covered List. 7. Luminys is an affiliate of Dahua Technology USA. Dahua Technology USA, through filings with the Commission, has confirmed it is affiliated with Luminys. Dahua Technology USA previously was a wholly owned subsidiary of Zhejiang Dahua Technology Company, Ltd. See id. At the end of March 2024, Zhejiang Dahua Technology Company, Ltd. sold all of its ownership interests in Dahua Technology USA to Central Motion Picture USA Corporation, a Delaware corporation that is an affiliate of Cheng Uei Precision Industry Co., Ltd. d/b/a Foxlink (Foxlink). Id. at 2. As a result of the sale, “Dahua USA is now an affiliate of Luminys.” Id. at 5. As of Feb. 11, 2025, the Luminys website included information regarding the relationships between Foxlink as the Luminys parent company and Dahua Technology USA as a wholly integrated part of Luminys. See Order to Show Cause at para. 5. As of June 5, 2025, the Luminys website appears to include no references to Dahua whatsoever. See https://luminyscorp.com/ (last visited June 5, 2025). 8. Luminys, by its response to the Order to Show Cause, has confirmed that it is affiliated with the producer of the equipment at issue in this proceeding. “The solar trailer is manufactured by … [Confidential Co.]…. [N]o entity affiliated with Dahua has an ownership or other interest in [Confidential Co.]. Luminys is affiliated with [Confidential Co.] through common ownership by Foxlink.” Luminys Response at 4. Under the Commission’s rules, the term “affiliate” means an entity that (directly or indirectly) owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with, another entity. Based on the information Luminys provided, the Bureaus have tentatively concluded that the producer of the equipment at issue appears to be affiliated with Dahua Technology USA, an entity named on the Covered List, through common ownership by Foxlink. Because the equipment at issue appears to be produced by an affiliate of an entity named on the Covered List, the Bureaus have tentatively determined that the equipment is prohibited from authorization pursuant to section 2.903(a) of the Commission’s rules. 9. Equipment authorizations subject to this proposed revocation action. In the attached Appendix, the Bureaus identify the specific equipment authorizations granted to Luminys that the Bureaus have tentatively determined to be covered equipment that was improperly authorized. By Luminys’s own statements as described herein, Luminys is marketing products that were produced by Foxlink, an affiliate of Dahua Technology USA. 10. Initiation of revocation proceeding. According to our tentative determinations that the equipment subject to the Luminys equipment authorizations is covered equipment and the applications for the equipment authorizations contained false statements or representations that the equipment is not prohibited from receiving an equipment authorization pursuant to section 2.903, we initiate a proceeding under section 2.939(d) to reach a final determination whether to revoke the equipment authorizations identified in the Appendix. See 47 CFR § 2.939(d). This proceeding affords the Company notice and an opportunity to file a written response to explain why the Commission should not revoke such equipment authorizations. 11. The Company must file a response with the Bureaus within ten (10) calendar days of release of this Order to Show Cause demonstrating why the Commission should not revoke the Luminys equipment authorizations identified in the Appendix and described in paragraph 2 of this Order. 47 CFR § 2.939(d)(2). Luminys may seek confidential treatment of its filings pursuant to section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 CFR § 0.459. Failure to timely respond or submit a response providing a reasonable basis for why the Commission should not revoke its equipment authorizations may result in revocation of the equipment authorizations obtained by the Company through the Commission. The Company’s response must include a written detailed factual statement explaining why the equipment authorizations should not be revoked, supported by appropriate documentation and declarations pursuant to section 1.16 of the Commission’s rules. 47 CFR § 1.16. The written statement must include the FCC file numbers referenced in the caption and be sent to Jamie Coleman, Associate Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20554; Michael Connelly, Deputy Chief, Policy and Legal Affairs, Operations and Emergency Management Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20554. The written statement must also be e-mailed to Jamie Coleman at jamie.coleman@fcc.gov, and michael.connelly@fcc.gov. The written statement must also be filed in the docket referenced in the caption of this document. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 302 of the Act and section 2.939(d) of the Commission’s rules, 47 U.S.C. § 302a; 47 CFR 2.939(d). Luminys MUST FILE a written response to this Show Cause Order within ten (10) calendar days from the release date of this Order. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service of the Order shall be effectuated by email to product@luminyscorp.com on the release date of this Order and also that a copy shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Steven Mei, Product Director, Luminys, 15245 Alton Pkwy #100, Irvine, CA 92518, United States; Andrew D. Lipman, Counsel to Luminys Systems Corp., Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004, United States. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ira Keltz Acting Chief Office of Engineering and Technology Zenji Nakazawa Acting Chief Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau APPENDIX Applicant Name Luminys Systems Corporation Luminys Systems Corporation FCC ID 2BHII-TG113A 2BHII-TG113A Receipt Date 10/28/2024 10/28/2024 Final Action Date 10/28/2024 10/29/2024 Equipment Class DTS PCB Equipment Description Digital Transmission System PCS Licensed Transmitter Frequencies 2412.0-2462.0 824.0-849.0, 824.0-849.0, 1850.0-1910.0, 1850.0-1910.0, 1710.0-1755.0, 1710.0-1755.0, 2500.0-2570.0, 2500.0-2570.0, 699.0-716.0, 699.0-716.0, 777.0-787.0, 777.0-787.0, 704.0-716.0, 704.0-716.0, 1850.0-1915.0, 1850.0-1915.0, 2570.0-2620.0, 2570.0-2620.0, 2305.0-2315.0, 2305.0-2315.0, 2350.0-2360.0, 2350.0-2360.0, 2496.0-2690.0, 2496.0-2690.0, 1710.0-1780.0, 1710.0-1780.0 Power Outputs 0.04906 0.23281, 0.27669, 0.28642, 0.25003, 0.30903, 0.31117, 0.21928, 0.31046, 0.2133, 0.29174, 0.20184, 0.22909, 0.28973, 0.27479, 0.25882, 0.29309, 0.2466, 0.30761, 0.26546, 0.31333, 0.2704, 0.26853, 0.27861, 0.28119, 0.30479, 0.30832 Rule Parts 15C 22H, 24E, 27 2