Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations to all program recipients. Interpreting this provision to allow for more multiple general six month extensions for all participants without regard to the circumstances of each individual applicant would seem to run counter to the intent of Congress of having a oneyear term deadline and would seem to moot, or at least significantly diminish, the need for, or relevance of allowing, individual extensions. Following the funding allocation stage, the Commission directs WCB to assess the supply of replacement equipment in the marketplace. The Commission expects WCB, in making this assessment, to account for the information reported by program recipients in the status updates filed as required by the Secure Networks Act. WCB shall inform the Commission of its assessment in a timely manner so as to give the Commission sufficient time to provide notice and justification to Congress and to issue a general extension of time before the initial oneyear deadline expires for program recipients.
158. In reading the statutory provision on individual extensions, the Commission agrees with commenters who assert that the provision allows it to grant more than one extension to a recipient. The Secure Networks Act states that the Commission may grant a petition for an extension, but does not provide any direct limit as to the number of extensions that may be granted. Instead, the only limit to granting an extension is whether the Commission finds that, due to no fault of such recipient, such recipient is unable to complete the permanent removal, replacement, and disposal.
The Commission interprets this language to mean that it may grant more than one individual extension as factors beyond the control of an applicant may exist for more than six months, an interpretation endorsed by all commenters. The Commission also agrees with commenters that the statute specifically allows it to grant both a general and individual extensions if the circumstances warrant. The Commission also agrees with commenters that it may not issue a single, across-the-board extension that exceeds six months. The Commission believes this is an important safety valve for recipients to complete their network transitions. The Commission directs WCB to address petitions for extensions in the first instance consistent with the following principles. In order to ensure prompt replacement in accordance with the goals of the Act, petitions for extension will only be granted where the program recipient demonstrates the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:46 Jan 12, 2021

Jkt 253001

delay is due to factors beyond its control. In making this determination, the Commission directs WCB to be guided by the Commissions precedent in dealing with similar requests involving wireless facilities under 1.946 of the Commissions rules.
1.946e allows for extensions of time if the licensee shows that failure to meet the construction or coverage deadline is due to involuntary loss of site or other causes beyond its control.
The rule further provides that extension requests will not be granted for failure to meet a construction or coverage deadline due to delays caused by a failure to obtain financing, to obtain an antenna site, or to order equipment in a timely manner. If the licensee orders equipment within 90
days of its initial license grant, a presumption of diligence is established. The rule further provides that extension requests will not be granted for failure to meet a construction or coverage deadline because the licensee undergoes a transfer of control or because the licensee intends to assign the authorization. The Commission will not grant extension requests solely to allow a transferee or assignee to complete facilities that the transferor or assignor failed to construct. The Commission encourages WCB to provide guidance as necessary to program recipients to help them in seeking an extension of time.
This addresses the request of CCA, asking the Commission to provide clear guidance on how it will implement the provision on individual extensions and what will be expected from applicants to satisfy an extension request.
159. Applicability of USF Support Certification Requirement. The new remove-and-replace rule that the Commission adopts requires ETCs to certify prior to receiving USF support that they do not use equipment or services identified on the Covered List.
The Commission recognizes Reimbursement Program recipients will likely need to utilize their existing covered communications equipment or service on a temporary basis during the transition process to mitigate service disruptions for existing customers.
Accordingly, Reimbursement Program recipients are not subject to the new certification requirement until after the expiration of their removal, replacement, and disposal term.
However, once the term has expired, the provider will be subject to the certification requirement going forward when seeking to obtain USF support.
160. Effect of Removal from the Covered List. The Secure Networks Act provides a process for addressing
PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

2931

situations when communications equipment or service is removed from the Covered List following the filing of an application for reimbursement. If this situation occurs, then according to the Secure Networks Act, an applicant may either: 1 Return the reimbursement funds received and be released from any further removal, replacement, and disposal requirements; or 2 retain the reimbursement funds received and remain subject to the applicable removal, replacement, and disposal requirements. For purposes of the Reimbursement Program established in this document, the Commission interprets this statutory provision to mean that if the Covered List removal occurs after an application is filed and approved, then it will give the applicant the option to either proceed with or withdraw from the Reimbursement Program altogether. If withdrawing, then the applicant would need to notify the Commission as such and return any reimbursement funds previously disbursed to the Commission where applicable. If withdrawing, any funding allocated but not yet disbursed to the applicant would automatically revert to the Commission for potential reallocation to other applicants pursuant to a subsequently established filing window. If continuing with the Reimbursement Program, then the applicant must continue to comply with all applicable program requirements and obligations. Per the Secure Networks Act, if a program recipient needs an assurance as to whether the reimbursement funds have been returned, then the assurance may be satisfied by the recipient making an assurance that such funds have been returned. That said, the Commission will provide recipients with confirmation of reimbursement funds returned.
161. The Commission declines to implement a preapproval process for transition plans. Both CCA and NetNumber urge the Commission to provide a mechanism by which providers can obtain an upfront approval or at least additional guidance for their network transition plans. These commenters note the complexity of transitioning a network and explain how upfront approval and guidance would mitigate wasted time and resources on a plan the Commission ultimately does not support. The upfront approval mechanism would apparently need to precede the filing window for submitting reimbursement cost estimates.
162. Although the Commission sees the benefits of having a preapproval process, it is concerned the addition of
E:FRFM13JAR4.SGM

13JAR4