Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · STATUTE-COMPILATIONS · First Responder Access to Innovative Technologies Act · Sec. 2

Sec. 2. APPROVAL OF CERTAIN EQUIPMENT

511 words·~2 min read·/statute-compilations/comps-17883/sec-2

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

## SEC. 2 APPROVAL OF CERTAIN EQUIPMENT ###
(a)In General Section 2008 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 609) is amended— ####
(1)in subsection (f)— #####
(A)by striking “ If an applicant ” and inserting the following: > > #### “(1) Application requirement > > If an applicant” > ; and #####
(B)by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: > > #### “(2) Review process > > The Administrator shall implement a uniform process for reviewing applications that, in accordance with paragraph (1), contain explanations to use grants provided under section 2003 or 2004 to purchase equipment or systems that do not meet or exceed any applicable national voluntary consensus standards developed under section 647 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 747). > > > #### “(3) Factors > > In carrying out the review process under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall consider the following: > > > ##### “(A) > > Current or past use of proposed equipment or systems by Federal agencies or the Armed Forces. > > > ##### “(B) > > The absence of a national voluntary consensus standard for such equipment or systems. > > > ##### “(C) > > The existence of an international consensus standard for such equipment or systems, and whether such equipment or systems meets such standard. > > > ##### “(D) > > The nature of the capability gap identified by the applicant and how such equipment or systems will address such gap. > > > ##### “(E) > > The degree to which such equipment or systems will serve the needs of the applicant better than equipment or systems that meet or exceed existing consensus standards. > > > ##### “(F) > > Any other factor determined appropriate by the Administrator.” > ; and ####
(2)by adding at the end the following new subsection: > > ### “(g) Review Process > > The Administrator shall implement a uniform process for reviewing applications to use grants provided under section 2003 or 2004 to purchase equipment or systems not included on the Authorized Equipment List maintained by the Administrator.” > . ###
(b)Inspector General Report Not later than three years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report assessing the implementation of the review process established under paragraph
(2)of subsection
(f)of section 2008 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (as added by subsection
(a)of this section), including information on the following: ####
(1)The number of requests to purchase equipment or systems that do not meet or exceed any applicable consensus standard evaluated under such review process. ####
(2)The capability gaps identified by applicants and the number of such requests granted or denied. ####
(3)The processing time for the review of such requests.
Connectionstraces to 2
Citation graph
cites case law
Sec. 2
APPROVAL OF CERTAIN EQUIPMENT
Cites 2Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.