3832 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Violation Statutory amount 

after 2021 annual inflation adjustment 

Sec. 227(e) Caller Identification ............................................................... $11,905/violation. 

*$35,715/day for each day of continuing violation, up to $1,190,546 for 

any single act or failure to act 

Sec. 364(a) Forfeitures (Ships) ................................................................ $10,366/day (owner). 

Sec. 364(b) Forfeitures (Ships) ................................................................ $2,074 (vessel master). 

Sec. 386(a) Forfeitures (Ships) ................................................................ $10,366/day (owner). 

Sec. 386(b) Forfeitures (Ships) ................................................................ $2,074 (vessel master). 

Sec. 511 Pirate Radio Broadcasting ........................................................ $2,023,640, $101,182/day. 

Sec. 634 Cable EEO ................................................................................ $919/day. 

(10) * * * 

(ii) The application of the annual 

inflation adjustment required by the 

foregoing Federal Civil Penalties 

Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements 

Act of 2015 results in the following 

adjusted statutory maximum forfeitures 

authorized by the Communications Act: 

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (B)(10)(II) 

U.S. Code citation 

Maximum penalty after 2021 

annual inflation 

adjustment 

47 U.S.C. 202(c) .................. $12,439 

622 

47 U.S.C. 203(e) .................. 12,439 

622 

47 U.S.C. 205(b) .................. 24,877 

47 U.S.C. 214(d) .................. 2,487 

47 U.S.C. 219(b) .................. 2,487 

47 U.S.C. 220(d) .................. 12,439 

47 U.S.C. 223(b) .................. 128,904 

47 U.S.C. 227(e) .................. 11,905 

35,715 

1,190,546 

47 U.S.C. 362(a) .................. 10,366 

47 U.S.C. 362(b) .................. 2,074 

47 U.S.C. 386(a) .................. 10,366 

47 U.S.C. 386(b) .................. 2,074 

47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(A) ........ 51,827 

518,283 

47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(B) ........ 207,314 

2,073,133 

47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(C) ........ 419,353 

3,870,946 

47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(D) ........

20,731 

155,485 

47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(F) ......... 119,055 

1,190,546 

47 U.S.C. 507(a) .................. 2,053 

47 U.S.C. 507(b) .................. 301 

47 U.S.C. 511 ...................... 2,023,640 

101,182 

47 U.S.C. 554 ...................... 919 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–00432 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 204, 212, 213, and 252 

[Docket DARS–2019–0063] 

RIN 0750–AJ84 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Covered 

Defense Telecommunications 

Equipment or Services (DFARS Case 

2018–D022) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is adopting as final, with 

changes, an interim rule amending the 

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (DFARS) to implement 

sections of the National Defense 

Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2018 

and 2019 related to the procurement of 

covered telecommunications equipment 

or services. Specifically, the rule 

prohibits the use of telecommunications 

equipment or services from certain 

Chinese entities and from any other 

entities that the Secretary of Defense 

reasonably believes to be owned or 

controlled by, or otherwise connected 

to, the government of the People’s 

Republic of China or the Russian 

Federation, as a substantial or essential 

component of any system, or as a 

critical technology as a part of any 

system. 

DATES: Effective January 15, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Heather Kitchens, telephone 571–372– 

6104. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD published an interim rule in the 

Federal Register at 84 FR 72231 on 

December 31, 2019, to implement 

section 1656 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2018 (Pub. L. 115–91). This 

final DFARS rule implements the 

section 1656 prohibition, partially 

implements section 889(a)(1)(A) of the 

NDAA for FY 2019 prohibitions for 

DoD, and is structured to align with the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

implementation of the section 

889(a)(1)(A) Governmentwide 

prohibition. The final rule should 

increase security of systems and critical 

technology that is part of any system 

used to carry out the nuclear deterrence 

and homeland defense missions of DoD 

by prohibiting the use of 

telecommunications equipment or 

services from certain Chinese entities, 

and from any other entities that the 

Secretary of Defense reasonably believes 

to be owned or controlled by, or 

otherwise connected to, the government 

of the People’s Republic of China or the 

Russian Federation. Three respondents 

submitted comments on the interim 

rule. 

II. Discussion and Analysis 

DoD reviewed the public comments in 

the development of the final rule. Two 

changes were made to the rule as a 

result of those comments. A respondent 

expressed support for the rule. Some 

respondents expressed concern over the 

underlying intent of the statute and 

recommended changes to the rule text to 

provide specific examples related to 

definitions. While DoD recognizes the 

concerns identified by the respondents, 

most of the recommendations are not 

within the scope of the statute. The 

ability to provide examples within the 

rule text is limited by the statute, which 

does not provide examples. A 

discussion of the public comments is 

provided as follows: 

A. Summary of Significant Changes 

From Interim Rule 

There are two changes from the 

interim rule. The changes amend 

DFARS clause 252.204–7018, 

Prohibition on the Acquisition of 

Covered Defense Telecommunications 

Equipment or Services, by extending: (1) 

The reporting timeframe for the 

discovery of covered defense 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3833 

telecommunications equipment or 

services from one day to three days, and 

(2) the reporting timeframe to submit 

information about mitigation actions 

undertaken from ten days to thirty days. 

B. Analysis of Public Comments 

1. Cost to the Public and Government 

Comment: A respondent stated that 

the representation adds administration 

costs to the public and Government and 

will make it difficult for small 

businesses to work with the 

Government. 

Response: The interim rule imposed 

the least amount of burden necessary to 

implement the statutory requirements 

by including an annual representation 

that may be relied upon if a negative 

representation (i.e., ‘‘does not’’) is 

provided in lieu of an offer-by-offer 

representation. 

2. Reporting Timelines 

Comment: Respondents 

recommended that the reporting 

timeline for the discovery of covered 

defense telecommunications equipment 

or services be extended beyond one 

business day and that the reporting 

timeline for the mitigation actions 

undertaken by the contractor be 

extended beyond ten days. 

Response: Concur. The one-day and 

ten-day requirements for reporting to 

DIBNet are extended in the final rule to 

three days and thirty days, respectively. 

3. Subcontract Reporting 

Comment: Respondents 

recommended that contractors only 

report subcontractor’s discovery of 

covered defense telecommunications 

equipment or services that have 

‘‘credible information’’. 

Response: The clause flow down 

requires that entities at all tiers report 

the discovery of covered defense 

telecommunications equipment or 

services to the higher tier subcontractor 

or prime contractor. If the higher tier 

subcontractor or prime contractor does 

not report lower tier notifications of the 

discovery of covered defense 

telecommunications equipment or 

services, the higher tier subcontractor 

and prime contractor are at risk of being 

in violation of the prohibition. 

4. Flowdown Requirements 

Comment: Respondents 

recommended that the subcontract flow 

down to ‘‘all subcontracts’’ instead of 

‘‘all subcontracts and other contractual 

instruments’’. 

Response: The statutory authority 

does not provide an exception for 

vendor agreements or suppliers that are 

not considered subcontractors; 

therefore, the flow down to ‘‘other 

contractual instruments’’ is required by 

the statute. 

5. List of Subsidiaries and Affiliates 

Comment: Respondents 

recommended that DoD provide a 

publicly available list of the subsidiaries 

and affiliates against which to evaluate 

compliance. A respondent 

recommended that the list of 

subsidiaries and affiliates be included in 

DIBNet in coordination with the Office 

of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs and recommended this list use 

the Department of Commerce list of 

affiliates and subsidiaries for Huawei. 

Another respondent recommended DoD 

provide and update, as necessary, a 

comprehensive list of all of the 

subsidiaries and affiliates on SAM.gov. 

Response: The statute does not give 

the Secretary of Defense the mission to 

maintain such a list. 

6. Definitions 

a. ‘‘Covered defense 

telecommunications equipment or 

services’’ 

Comment: Respondents stated that the 

definition of ‘‘covered defense 

telecommunications equipment or 

services’’ should provide examples of 

what is ‘‘covered defense 

telecommunications equipment or 

services’’. 

Response: The text of the rule aligns 

with the statutory language. These terms 

are not defined in the statute. 

b. ‘‘Defense’’ 

Comment: A respondent 

recommended defining the term 

‘‘defense’’. 

Response: The term ‘‘defense’’ is used 

in the term ‘‘covered defense 

telecommunications equipment or 

services’’ to clarify that the covered 

telecommunications equipment or 

services prohibited by section 1656 are 

only prohibited for DoD, therefore, a 

definition is not necessary. 

c. ‘‘Substantial or essential component’’ 

Comment: A respondent stated that 

there should be a new definition of 

‘‘substantial or essential component’’ or 

that examples of what is and is not a 

‘‘substantial or essential component’’ 

should be provided. 

Response: The text of the rule aligns 

with the statutory language. These terms 

are not defined in the statute. 

d. ‘‘Critical technologies’’ 

Comment: A respondent stated that 

the definition of ‘‘critical technology’’ 

should include the list of 27 emerging 

and foundational technologies 

developed pursuant to section 1758 of 

the Export Control Reform Act of 2018. 

Response: To ensure consistency in 

the event of future changes to the list, 

the technologies are referenced by a 

citation, within the definition, to section 

1758 of the Export Control Reform Act 

of 2018. 

e. ‘‘Owned or controlled by’’ 

Comment: A respondent stated that 

there should be clarifications or 

definitions provided for ‘‘an entity 

owned or controlled by, or otherwise 

connected to, the government of a 

covered foreign country’’. 

Response: The text of the rule aligns 

with the statutory language, which does 

not clarify these terms. 

f. ‘‘Covered missions’’ 

Comment: A respondent stated that 

the prescription is not limited to 

covered missions and that examples of 

covered missions should be provided. 

Response: The prescription is not 

limited to covered missions as a matter 

of national security. Covered missions 

include the examples provided in the 

statutory definition. The statute does 

not provide additional examples of 

covered missions. 

g. ‘‘Equipment’’, ‘‘produce’’, and 

‘‘component’’ 

Comment: A respondent stated that 

the terms ‘‘equipment,’’ ‘‘produce,’’ and 

‘‘component’’ should be more clearly 

defined, consistent with definitions 

existing in current regulations (such as 

export control regulations in ITAR, etc.). 

Response: The text of the rule aligns 

with the statutory language. These terms 

are not defined in the statute. 

7. Waiver Process 

Comment: A respondent stated that 

there should be clarification for the 

public on the waiver process. 

Response: The waiver process is an 

internal Government operating 

procedure. By submission of an offer 

containing the prohibited equipment or 

services, an entity is by default 

requesting a waiver. Waivers are a 

limited exception to the prohibition, 

and questions regarding the waiver 

process may be directed to the 

contracting officer. The contracting 

officer, working with the requiring 

activity, will review the representations 

and disclosures and make a 

determination to process the formal 

waiver. At that time, a contracting 

officer will request the additional 

information required by the statute for 

processing a waiver; this does not 

preclude an offeror from providing this 

information with its offer. The time to 

3834 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

process the information for a waiver is 

prior to award because the award is 

prohibited unless and until a waiver is 

granted. 

8. DIBNet Process 

Comment: A respondent 

recommended that the DIBNet 

homepage clarify how DIBNet would 

work and who has access to the reported 

data such as contractors or agencies. 

Response: DIBNet provides 

information on its website to clarify 

who has access to the data. The data is 

shared with the contracting officer so 

the contracting officer may work with 

legal counsel to enforce contractual 

remedies for violating the terms of the 

contract. 

9. Risk Mitigation Process 

Comment: A respondent 

recommended that DoD provide the 

steps to mitigate supply chain risk 

related to the requirement for the 

contractor to provide additional 

information about mitigation actions 

undertaken or recommended after the 

presence of covered defense 

telecommunications equipment or 

services is identified. 

Response: The steps to mitigate 

supply chain risk are unique to the 

contractor, and the contractor is 

required to provide the mitigation 

actions undertaken. 

10. Consistent Application 

Comment: A respondent stated that 

there should be consistent interdepartment interpretations and that the 

term ‘‘use’’ should be clarified and used 

in the same way in all rules. 

Response: The text of the rule aligns 

with the statutory language. This term is 

not defined in the statute. The FAR and 

DFARS rules on the section 889 

prohibition are intended to be 

complementary. 

III. Applicability to Contracts At or 

Below the Simplified Acquisition 

Threshold and for Commercial Items, 

Including Commercially Available Offthe-Shelf Items 

A. New Solicitation Provisions and 

Contract Clause 

The interim rule added two new 

solicitation provisions and a new 

contract clause as follows: 

• The provision at DFARS 252.204– 

7016, Covered Defense 

Telecommunications Equipment or 

Services—Representation. 

• The provision at DFARS 252.204– 

7017, Prohibition on Acquisition of 

Covered Defense Telecommunications 

Equipment or Services—Representation. 

• The clause at DFARS 252.204–7018, 

Prohibition on the Acquisition of 

Covered Defense Telecommunications 

Equipment or Services. 

B. Determinations 

Consistent with the determinations 

that DoD made on December 19, 2019, 

with regard to the application of the 

requirements of section 1656 of the 

NDAA for FY 2018, the two provisions 

and the clause listed above apply to all 

solicitations and contracts, including 

solicitations and contracts below the 

simplified acquisition threshold and for 

the acquisition of commercial items 

(including commercially available offthe-shelf items). It is important to apply 

the statutory prohibitions to all 

acquisitions in order to protect the 

security of nuclear command, control, 

and communications systems and 

ballistic missile defense from 

commercial dependencies on equipment 

and services from certain companies or 

certain foreign countries that are 

considered to create a risk to our 

national security. 

IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was 

subject to review under section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

V. Executive Order 13771 

This rule is not subject to the 

requirements of E.O. 13771, because the 

rule is issued with respect to a national 

security function of the United States. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities within the 

meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. A final 

regulatory flexibility analysis has been 

performed and is summarized as 

follows: 

DoD is converting to a final rule, with 

two minor changes, an interim rule that 

amended the DFARS to implement 

section 1656 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2018. This rule also partially 

implements section 889(a)(1)(A) of the 

NDAA for FY 2019 prohibitions for 

DoD, and is structured to align with the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

implementation of the section 

889(a)(1)(A) Governmentwide 

prohibition. The changes to the interim 

rule do not change the economic impact 

on the public. The changes provide 

additional time to complete the 

reporting requirements required by the 

clause at DFARS 252.204–7018, 

Prohibition on the Acquisition of 

Covered Defense Telecommunications 

Equipment or Services. 

The objective of this rule is to 

increase security of systems and critical 

technology which is part of any system 

used to carry out the nuclear deterrence 

and homeland defense missions of DoD 

by prohibiting the use of 

telecommunications equipment or 

services from certain Chinese entities, 

and from any other entities that the 

Secretary of Defense reasonably believes 

to be owned or controlled by or 

otherwise connected to, the government 

of the People’s Republic of China or the 

Russian Federation. Section 1656 of the 

NDAA for FY 2018 and section 

889(a)(1)(A) of the NDAA for FY 2019 

are the legal basis for the rule. 

There were no public comments in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

This rule includes a burden for two 

representations and a reporting 

requirement. Data from the Federal 

Procurement Data System (FPDS) for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 through FY 2018 

and data from the System for Award 

Management (SAM) was used to 

estimate the number of small businesses 

affected by this rule. 

The provision at DFARS 252.204– 

7016, Covered Defense 

Telecommunications Equipment or 

Services—Representation, requires the 

offeror to represent whether it does or 

does not provide covered defense 

telecommunications equipment or 

services as a part of its offered products 

or services to the Government in the 

performance of any contract, 

subcontract, or other contractual 

instrument. This provision is estimated 

to affect 145,955 unique small 

businesses, which is the estimated 

number of unique small businesses 

required to complete DoD 

representations in SAM. 

As of July 15, 2019, there were 

424,927 active registrants in SAM for 

contracts. DoD extrapolated the 

estimated number of SAM registrants 

that are required to fill out DoD 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3835 

representations to be 211,529 unique 

entities by dividing the average number 

of DoD unique awardees in the Federal 

Procurement Data System (FPDS) by the 

average number of Federal unique 

awardees in FPDS for FY 2016 through 

FY 2018 to obtain a percentage of 49.78 

percent of all Federal unique awardees 

that receive DoD awards. Applying 

49.78 percent to the total number of 

active SAM registrants results in 

211,529 estimated respondents. To 

further calculate the number of 

estimated respondents that are small 

businesses, this analysis multiplies the 

211,529 estimated respondents for DoD 

by 69 percent, which is the percentage 

of unique DoD awardees on average for 

FY 2016 through FY 2018 in FPDS that 

are small businesses, to estimate 

145,955 unique small entities impacted 

by DFARS 252.204–7016. 

The provision at DFARS 252.204– 

7017, Prohibition on Acquisition of 

Covered Defense Telecommunications 

Equipment or Services—Representation, 

requires that if an offeror provides an 

affirmative representation under the 

provision at 252.204–7016, Covered 

Defense Telecommunications 

Equipment or Services—Representation, 

that offeror is required to represent 

whether it will or will not provide 

under the contract, covered defense 

telecommunications equipment or 

services. If the offeror responds 

affirmatively, the offeror is required to 

further disclose information about the 

covered defense telecommunications 

equipment or services. 

DFARS provision 252.204–7017 is 

estimated to affect a total of only 3,054 

unique small business entities. 

Although DoD has no factual basis on 

which to estimate at this time what 

percentage of offerors will respond 

affirmatively to this representation, to 

be conservative DoD estimates 10 

percent of the 44,277 DoD unique 

awardees on average in FPDS for FY 

2016 through FY 2018 (4,428) will 

respond affirmatively, which triggers 

the disclosure requirement of the 

representation. Applying the estimated 

69 percent factor for small businesses to 

the estimate of 4,428 results in 3,054. To 

calculate the additional disclosure 

impact within 252.204–7017, DoD 

estimates 10 percent of the offerors 

filling out this representation will have 

to complete the additional disclosure 

(443 total, of which 306 are small 

entities). 

The clause at DFARS 252.204–7018, 

Prohibition on the Acquisition of 

Covered Defense Telecommunications 

Equipment or Services, requires 

contractors and subcontractors to report 

through https://dibnet.dod.mil, any 

discovery of covered 

telecommunications equipment or 

services during the course of contract 

performance. Although DoD has no 

factual basis on which to estimate at this 

time what percentage of awardees will 

be required to submit a report, the 

clause is estimated to affect 443 unique 

entities, which is 1 percent of the 

number of unique entities that received 

DoD awards on average for FY 2016 

through FY 2018 in FPDS (44,277). Of 

the 443 impacted entities 306 entities 

(69 percent) are estimated to be DoD 

unique small entities. 

Because of the nature of the 

prohibition enacted by section 1656, it 

is not possible to establish different 

compliance or reporting requirements or 

timetables that take into account the 

resources available to small entities or 

to exempt small entities from coverage 

of the rule, or any part thereof. DoD was 

unable to identify any alternatives that 

would reduce the burden on small 

entities and still meet the objectives of 

section 1656. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule contains information 

collection requirements that have been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

This information collection requirement 

has been assigned OMB Control Number 

0750–0002, titled: Covered Defense 

Telecommunications Equipment or 

Services. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 204, 

212, 213, and 252 

Government procurement. 

Jennifer D. Johnson, 

Regulatory Control Officer, Defense 

Acquisition Regulations System. 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 48 CFR parts 204, 212, 213, 

and 252 published at 84 FR 72231 on 

December 31, 2019, is adopted as a final 

rule with the following changes. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 252 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

252.204–7018 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend section 252.204–7018 by— 

■ a. Removing the clause date of ‘‘(DEC 

2019)’’ and adding ‘‘(JAN 2021)’’ in its 

place; 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(2)(i), removing 

‘‘one business day’’ and adding ‘‘3 

business days’’ in its place; and 

■ c. In paragraph (d)(2)(ii), removing 

‘‘10 business days’’ and adding ‘‘30 

business days’’ in its place. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00612 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 212 and 252 

[Docket DARS–2021–0001] 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Technical 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is making technical 

amendments to the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to provide needed editorial 

changes. 

DATES: Effective January 15, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Jennifer D. Johnson, Defense 

Acquisition Regulations System, 

OUSD(A&S)DPC(DARS), Room 3B938, 

3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3060. Telephone 571–372–6100. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule amends the DFARS as follows: 

1. Corrects the numbering of 

paragraphs at section 212.301(f)(ii). On 

December 31, 2019, DoD published in 

the Federal Register at 84 FR 72231 an 

interim rule titled ‘‘Covered Defense 

Telecommunications Equipment or 

Services (DFARS Case 2018–D022)’’. 

The rule added paragraphs (f)(ii)(H), (I), 

and (J); however the correct paragraph 

numbers should have reflected (f)(ii)(G), 

(H), and (I). A prior change to this 

section on October 31, 2019, published 

at 84 FR 58332, had redesignated 

paragraphs (f)(ii)(F) and (G) as 

paragraphs (f)(ii)(E) and (F); however, 

this redesignation was not reflected in 

the paragraph numbering in the 

December 19, 2019, publication. This 

sequence of events resulted in the 

current electronic Code of Federal 

Regulations (eCFR) not reflecting a 

paragraph (f)(ii)(G) in the numbering 

sequence, which this amendment 

corrects. 

2. Corrects DFARS clause 252.244– 

7000 in paragraph (d) by removing ‘‘(c)’’ 

and adding ‘‘(d)’’ in its place. On