Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations collateral damage such as loss of life that may occur with any mass disruption to its nations communications networks. Any increasing costs due to the CAAs expansion of the eligibility criteria for participation in the Reimbursement Program will be exceeded by the benefits of removing, replacing, and disposing of even more insecure equipment and services from U.S.
networks.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

III. Procedural Matters 106. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Analysis. This document does not contain modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 PRA, Public Law 10413. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506c4.
107. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 RFA requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis FRFA concerning the possible impact of the rule changes contained in this Third Report and Order on small entities.
108. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended RFA, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis IRFA was incorporated in the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 2021 Supply Chain Further Notice in this proceeding. The Commission sought written comment on the proposals in the 2021 Supply Chain Further Notice, including comment on the accompanying IRFA. The present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis FRFA addresses comments received on the IRFA and conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules 109. As directed by the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 Secure Networks Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
CAA, and in light of increasing concern about ensuring communications supply chain integrity, and consistent with its obligation to be responsible stewards of the public funds used in Universal Service Fund USF
programs, this Third Report and Order
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:11 Aug 20, 2021

Jkt 253001

adopts rules to modify the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program Reimbursement Program according to sections 901 and 906 of the CAA.
110. Specifically, the Commission increases the eligibility cap to allow providers of advanced communications services with 10 million or fewer customers to participate in the Reimbursement Program. Additionally, the Commission modifies the equipment and services eligible for reimbursement through the Reimbursement Program and amends its rules to allow Reimbursement Fund participants to use such funds to remove, replace, or dispose of equipment or services from the Covered List that are defined in the 2019 Supply Chain Order or subject to the Designation Orders and the process for designating companies that pose a national security threat to the integrity of communications networks or the communications supply chain, as set forth in the 2019 Supply Chain Order, and were purchased, rented, leased, or otherwise obtained on or before June 30, 2020. The Commission also alters its prioritization scheme that will guide fund allocation if demand for reimbursement funds exceeds the $1.895 billion appropriated by Congress.
The new prioritization scheme will first fund reimbursement claims from eligible providers with two million or fewer customers. Next, it will fund claims from approved applicants that are accredited public or private noncommercial educational institutions providing their own facilities-based educational broadband services. Last, it will fund eligible providers with 10
million or fewer customers. The Commission also alters the definition of provider of advanced communications services to mirror the definition provided in the CAA. Finally, the Commission clarifies 1 the costs reasonably incurred standard adopted for determining eligible reimbursement expenses with technology upgrades; 2
the initial application filing window; 3
the consideration of requests for individual extensions of the removal, replacement, and disposal term; 4
additional expectations for and obligations of Reimbursement Program participants regarding reimbursement claim requests and the filing of final spending reports and final certification updates; 5 the process by which to account for removal, replacement, and disposal of covered equipment and services; 6 parameters when accounting for reimbursement funds;
and 7 delegation of financial oversight
PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

47013

to the Office of the Managing Director OMD.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
111. No comments were filed in response to the IRFAs. However, parties did file comments addressing the impact of some proposals on small entities.
112. The Competitive Carriers Association supports the Commissions adoption of the prioritization scheme expressly provided for in the CAA. CCA
argued that those provider with 2
million or fewer customers include the small and rural carriers that serve some of the most remote and expensive areas of the country and are bridging the digital divide by bringing service to places where there would not be a business case to offer service absent support . . . . Loss of funding would have an immediate and detrimental effect on the carriers ability to provide services and, thus, access to rural America. Mediacom supports the Commissions new prioritization schedule because those providers need the greatest assistance because they have more limited resources. NTCA
agrees, writing that smaller providers already operate on razor thin margins;
adding the financial cost of replacing existing equipment outside of its normal upgrade cycle or losing universal service funding would be a crushing burden. While some commenters quibble about additional prioritization categories, there is broad support in the record for offering first priority to Reimbursement Program funding to those providers with two million or fewer customers. The Commission agrees and finds that its new prioritization paradigm will target those smaller providers who are most affected by any remove-and-replace requirement.
113. Northern Michigan University NMU supports the Commissions decision to modify the acceptable use of reimbursement funds for the removal, replacement, and disposal of covered equipment obtained prior to July 1, 2020
. . . . NMU writes that moving the eligible replacement equipment date to June 30, 2020 accounts for the additional expenses providers have incurred in maintaining robust internet services to customers and ensures that these systems will be replaced with more modern, secure facilities. NMU
also believes that this action will help smaller providers who often lack the cash reserves typically required for large construction projects. In the case of Supply Chain wholesale equipment replacement, portions of systems
E:FRFM23AUR1.SGM

23AUR1