Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations that exceed what is reasonably necessary to transition to a comparable replacement. In the 2021 Supply Chain Order, the Commission found, as a general matter, expenses incurred replacing microwave backhaul with fiber backhaul or replacing last-mile fixed wireless links with fiber-to-thepremises FTTP are not reasonably necessary to transition to a comparable replacement. Thus, consistent with the 2021 Supply Chain Order, while the Bureau will view fiber replacements as a technology upgrade, not a reasonable, comparable replacement, Reimbursement Program participants may be reimbursed for a portion of their expenses up to the difference in cost between a comparable replacement and the fiber upgrade. However, additional sources of Federal funding outside the scope of Reimbursement Program may be available to applicants for fiber deployments which could account for costs that exceed the costs of a comparable replacement. The Bureau encourages providers to explore all available funding options to upgrade their networks with fiber. Additionally, the Commission found that handset upgrades and certain other customerpremises equipment CPE are ineligible for reimbursement because replacing such handsets is not reasonably necessary to the removal, replacement, and disposal of covered communications equipment or service.
26. Average Catalog Cost Estimate.
Separately, the Bureau adopts its proposals in the Reimbursement Process PN related to the submission of cost estimates for the purposes of granting funding allocations. The Bureau adopts its proposal to base its evaluation of applicants cost estimates on the average between the minimum and maximum range of estimated costs for a particular itemized expense listed in the Catalog, rather than allowing applicants to choose any amount within the cost estimate range. The preliminary catalog included a low-end and high-end range of cost estimates for each particular itemized expense identified to help develop a record on reasonable expenses associated with the relevant expenses. In addition to a range of cost estimates, the final Catalog now includes the average between the lowend and high-end range of cost estimates for each itemized expense identified. Applicants relying on Catalog cost estimates for their applications will select the predetermined average cost estimate for a particular itemized expense identified in the Catalog as opposed to providing a cost estimate that is within the range
VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:07 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

of cost estimates. This approach will reduce the likelihood of applicants overestimating costs, and will thus minimize overallocation of limited funding to the detriment of other Reimbursement Program participants.
Some commenters object to the use of average cost estimates, arguing that equipment types within the ranges are too varied, and that applicants will regularly exceed the averages. The Bureau rejects this argument. If an applicant finds that a Catalog cost estimate average does not fully account for its costs, or if a cost category is not identified in the Catalog, applicants are permitted to provide individualized cost estimates based on supporting documentation e.g., vendor quotes and certify the cost estimate is made in good faith. This approach balances the Commissions goals of protecting against waste, fraud, and abuse while facilitating the production of estimates of costs reasonably incurred by applicants.
27. As indicated in this document, the Bureau will also collect cost-estimate information on a site-specific basis because it enables the review of cost estimates for reasonableness and promotes clear identification and tracking to assist with the invoicing process, as well as protecting against waste fraud and abuse. Applicants may, however, report in their applications network-wide costs, such as disposal costs or software upgrades, that apply to several site locations.
28. Nokia asks us to permit applicants to submit cost estimates that are based on reasonable costs incurred by the applicant over an 18-month project timeline. The Bureau declines to accept a cost estimate covering such a lengthy period of time. The removal, replacement, and disposal term provided for in the Secure Networks Act and the Commissions rules ends one year after the participant receives its initial disbursement of support.
Accordingly, participants should submit cost estimates accounting for a one-year term as currently provided under the Commissions rules that commences when the participant receives its initial draw down disbursement.
29. The Commissions rules direct the Bureau to review applications to determine completeness, program eligibility, and the reasonableness of cost estimates. The Bureau must approve or deny applications no later than 90 days after the close of the relevant filing window. If additional time is needed to review the applications, the Bureau may extend the deadline up to an additional 45 days.
Consistent with the Secure Networks
PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

48525

Act, the Commissions rules state if the . . . Bureau determines that an application is materially deficient including by lacking an adequate cost estimate or adequate supporting materials, the . . . Bureau shall provide the applicant a 15-day period to cure the defect before denying the application.
The Bureau sought comment on additional facets of the review process and received limited comment on the opportunity to cure and the filing of amendments during the 90-day review period as discussed herein.
30. The 90-day review period will commence on the next business day following the close of the filing window, per the Commissions rules. As proposed, after the filing window closes and the 90-day review period commences, the Reimbursement Program Fund Administrator will conduct an initial review of the applications to help the Bureau determine whether the applications are initially considered eligible and acceptable for filing and to evaluate the gross estimate demand contained in those applications. The Bureau will then issue a public notice announcing those applications initially found eligible and acceptable for filing, and those applications considered materially deficient. The Reimbursement Program Fund Administrator will proceed with processing those applications considered acceptable. Applicants filing applications found unacceptable for filing will need to amend and provide additional information demonstrating program eligibility before the Reimbursement Program Fund Administrator can proceed with processing their applications as acceptable for filing.
31. 15-Day Opportunity to Cure. As required by the Secure Networks Act and the Commissions rules, the Bureau will give applicants whose applications are found materially deficient a 15-day opportunity to cure the deficiency before their application is denied. As proposed, the Bureau will individually notify each applicant that its application is deficient and that it has 15 days to cure all of the identified deficiencies.
Such notice will be distinct from the public notice announcing applications accepted for filing and applications with material defects. RWA questions whether the 15-day cure period starts on the date of the public notice release or the individual notification date.
Accordingly, the Bureau clarifies the 15day cure period will commence on the date of the individual email notification is sent by the Commission and received by the applicant.

E:FRFM31AUR1.SGM

31AUR1