Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48521 

delivery mechanism the Governance 

Authority may establish in its operating 

procedures. 

(d) Review by the Wireline 

Competition Bureau. (1) Except in 

extraordinary circumstances, final 

action on a request for review of a 

Governance Authority decision to 

revoke a voice service provider’s or 

intermediate provider’s SPC token 

should be expected no later than 180 

days from the date the request for 

review is filed in the Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) 

pursuant to § 64.6308(b)(1). The 

Wireline Competition Bureau shall have 

the discretion to pause the 180-day 

review period in situations where 

actions outside the Wireline 

Competition Bureau’s control are 

responsible for delaying review of a 

request for review. 

(2) An affected party may seek review 

of a decision issued under delegated 

authority by the Wireline Competition 

Bureau pursuant to the rules set forth in 

§ 1.115. 

(e) Standard of review. The Wireline 

Competition Bureau shall conduct de 

novo review of Governance Authority 

decisions to revoke a voice service 

provider’s or intermediate provider’s 

SPC token. 

(f) Status during pendency of a 

request for review and a Governance 

Authority decision. (1) A voice service 

provider or intermediate provider shall 

not be considered to be in violation of 

the Commission’s caller ID 

authentication rules under § 64.6301 

after revocation of its SPC token by the 

Governance Authority until the thirty 

(30) day period to file a formal appeal 

with the Governance Authority Board 

expires, or during the pendency of any 

formal appeal to the Governance 

Authority Board. 

(2) A voice service provider or 

intermediate provider shall not be 

considered to be in violation of the 

Commission’s caller ID authentication 

rules under § 64.6301 after the 

Governance Authority Board upholds 

the Governance Authority’s SPC token 

revocation decision until the sixty (60) 

day period to file a request for review 

with the Commission expires. 

(3) When a voice service provider or 

intermediate provider has sought timely 

Commission review of a Governance 

Authority decision to revoke a voice 

service provider’s or intermediate 

provider’s SPC token under this section, 

the voice service provider shall not be 

considered to be in violation of the 

Commission’s caller ID authentication 

rules under § 64.6301 until and unless 

the Wireline Competition Bureau, 

pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, has upheld or otherwise 

decided not to overturn the Governance 

Authority’s decision. 

(4) In accordance with §§ 1.102(b) and 

1.106(n), the effective date of any action 

pursuant to paragraph (d) shall not be 

stayed absent order by the Wireline 

Competition Bureau or the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18765 Filed 8–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 18–89; DA 21–947; FRS 

44708] 

Wireline Competition Bureau Finalizes 

Application Filings, Procedures, Cost 

Catalog, and Replacement List for the 

Secure and Trusted Communications 

Networks Reimbursement Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC). 

ACTION: Final action. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (the 

Bureau) adopts final procedures for, and 

provides eligible providers of advanced 

communications services with 

additional guidance regarding, the 

application filing and reimbursement 

process for the $1.9 billion Secure and 

Trusted Communications Networks 

Reimbursement Program 

(Reimbursement Program). The Bureau 

also adopted final versions of the FCC 

Form 5640 Application Request for 

Funding Allocation and Reimbursement 

Claim Request, the Catalog of Eligible 

Expenses and Estimated Costs (Catalog), 

and the List of Categories of Suggested 

Replacement Equipment and Services 

(Replacement List) for the 

Reimbursement Program. 

DATES: The procedures outlined in this 

document are effective on September 

30, 2021, except for the FCC Form 5640 

application form, which is subject to 

approval from the Office of Management 

and Budget. The Bureau will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing the effective date for the 

FCC Form 5640. The Bureau will also 

subsequently release a public notice 

announcing when it will begin 

accepting applications and the 

application deadline for participating in 

the Reimbursement Program. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Koves, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, 202–418–7400 or 

by emailing Supplychain@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Bureau’s document 

(Public Notification or PN) in WC 

Docket No. 18–89; DA 21–947, released 

on August 3, 2021. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection on the Commission’s website 

at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/DA-21-947A1.pdf. 

I. Introduction 

1. By this document, the Bureau 

adopts final procedures for, and 

provides eligible providers of advanced 

communications services with 

additional guidance regarding, the 

application filing and reimbursement 

process for the $1.9 billion 

Reimbursement Program. After 

considering comments received in 

response to the Reimbursement Process 

Public Notification (PN), 86 FR 31464, 

June 14, 2021, the Bureau finalizes the 

information fields on the new FCC Form 

5640, which participants must submit to 

request funding allocations and 

disbursements from the Reimbursement 

Program, as well as the procedures 

governing the submission of and any 

modifications made to that form. Acting 

Chairwoman Rosenworcel has 

announced a ‘‘target date’’ of October 

29, 2021, to open the Reimbursement 

Program filing window to begin 

accepting applications. Prior to the 

target date, the Bureau will announce in 

a forthcoming public notice when it will 

open the Reimbursement Program 

online portal and begin accepting 

applications, and the filing window 

closing date. Finally, after considering 

comments received in response to the 

Catalog PN, 86 FR 18932, April 12, 

2021, the Bureau also finalizes with this 

document the Catalog and the 

Replacement List which will be made 

available on the Commission’s website. 

II. Discussion 

A. FCC Form 5640—Application 

Request for Funding Allocation and 

Reimbursement Claim Requests 

2. The Bureau adopts the application 

and reimbursement procedures and 

finalizes forms for the Reimbursement 

Program proposed in the 

Reimbursement Process PN. 

3. In the Reimbursement Process PN, 

the Bureau provided a representative 

sample of the questions to be included 

in the FCC Form 5640 Application 

Request for Funding Allocation and 

sought comment on those information 

fields. The Bureau received persuasive 

comments regarding various fields 

applicants would complete in the new 

proposed form and, in response, it has 

implemented some modifications, and 

will proceed with finalizing that form. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48522 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

4. The Bureau proposed in the 

Reimbursement Process PN ‘‘requiring 

applicants to identify in their 

application for each location site: (1) 

Where covered communications 

equipment or services are located (e.g., 

address, longitude and latitude, etc.) 

and documentation supporting the 

acquisition/existence of such covered 

equipment or services; and (2) the 

itemized cost estimates, taken from the 

Catalog where applicable, that are 

associated with the removal, 

replacement, and disposal of covered 

equipment and services at each site.’’ 

Several commenters argued that 

requiring specific information about 

equipment at the application stage is 

burdensome on small carriers and some 

carriers may not have access to the 

information. The Rural Wireless 

Broadband Coalition recommended that 

instead of requiring such information at 

the application stage, the Application 

Request for Funding Allocation should, 

after the equipment is removed, 

populate a field for the make, model, 

and number of units for the removed 

equipment. 

5. The Bureau declines to modify the 

proposed site-specific information 

collected. The identification and 

tracking of site-specific information on 

covered and replacement 

communications and services, as well as 

on cost estimates, helps to ensure funds 

are spent for the purpose intended and 

protects against waste, fraud, and abuse. 

This information assists in determining 

program eligibility for the removal, 

replacement, and disposal of Huawei 

Technologies Company (Huawei) and 

ZTE Corporation (ZTE) equipment or 

services obtained on or before June 30, 

2020, and facilitates the assessment of 

applicants’ cost estimates for allocation 

purposes. The Bureau acknowledges 

that requiring site-specific information 

is more burdensome than a selfcertification requirement. Including the 

more detailed site-specific information, 

however, will ensure that the 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator will be able to properly 

allocate the $1.895 billion and will limit 

the risk that incorrect estimates 

unnecessarily deplete the 

Reimbursement Program to the 

detriment of other applicants. 

Additionally, any increased costs 

associated with preparing applications 

that include site-specific information 

are potentially eligible for 

Reimbursement Program support, 

decreasing the financial burden on 

applicants when preparing applications. 

The Bureau, therefore, concludes that 

the benefits of the site-specific filing 

requirement outweigh any burden on 

the carriers. The Bureau recognizes, 

however, that the information provided 

is made in ‘‘good faith and that all 

information provided . . . is true and 

correct to the best of Applicant’s 

knowledge,’’ based on the prior exercise 

of reasonable due diligence, at the time 

the application is filed. The Bureau will 

provide a process for participants to file 

modifications to their applications if 

more accurate information subsequently 

becomes available. 

6. Additional Requested Form 

Changes. Several commenters sought 

changes or clarifications to the proposed 

information fields included in the 

Application Request for Funding 

Allocation. Nokia proposed changes to 

the questions concerning the use of 

Open Radio Access Network (Open 

RAN) technology interface standards by 

applicants. Specifically, Nokia 

requested that the fields indicating that 

applicants selected Open RAN solutions 

be removed because the fields show a 

preference for Open RAN. The Bureau 

disagrees. These questions are merely 

intended to help the Commission track 

technology choices by providers and do 

not suggest or otherwise encourage an 

applicant to select a particular 

technology solution. Accordingly, the 

Bureau fails to see how these questions 

show a preference for certain types of 

network architecture and decline to 

remove these questions. 

7. Mavenir Systems, Inc. (Mavenir) 

separately requested several changes to 

the proposed information fields. 

Specifically, Mavenir requested that the 

Bureau strikes the use of ‘‘O RAN’’ to 

avoid confusion between Open RAN 

generally and the O RAN Alliance, that 

it specifies an applicant is using 

fronthaul Radio Access Network and 

Core Network, and that the Bureau 

specifies that an applicant is compliant 

with O–RAN Alliance 7.2 fronthaul 

standards rather than the more generally 

stated ‘‘O–RAN Alliance standards.’’ 

Additionally, Mavenir suggested two 

additions to the information fields 

inquiring whether applicants are using 

equipment or service compliant with 

the 3GPP X2 standard and other 3GPP 

open interfaces, and if so, whether there 

is an associated fee to make the 

equipment interoperable or open. To 

reduce confusion, the Bureau removes 

the general O–RAN question that was in 

item 51 on the proposed Application 

Request for Funding Allocation. 

Additionally, the Bureau modifies items 

53 and 54 to ask applicants if the 

‘‘equipment or service is compliant with 

O–RAN Alliance standards, such as O– 

RAN Alliance 7.2 fronthaul standards.’’ 

While the O–RAN Alliance 7.2 

fronthaul standard is currently a leading 

standard, work continues on this 

developing standard, and updates 

continue to be published. For example, 

on June 29, 2021, after Mavenir and 

others filed their comments, the O–RAN 

Alliance published a Third White Paper, 

‘‘O–RAN Minimum Viable Plan and 

Acceleration towards 

Commercialization.’’ In the Third White 

Paper, the O–RAN Alliance wrote that 

‘‘[f]uture O–RAN releases will extend 

the [Minimum Viable Plan] with new 

features and functionalities as these 

inputs and priorities evolve.’’ The 

Bureau wants to ensure the information 

collected on the Application Request for 

Funding Allocation addresses whether 

the equipment is compatible with any 

future standards that are adopted as the 

O–RAN Alliance continues its work. 

Finally, the Bureau includes the two 

questions regarding 3GPP X2 standard 

and open interfaces because these 

questions are helpful in analyzing 

technology trends. 

8. ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTRAN) 

suggested incorporating a ‘‘country of 

origin’’ line item into the Application 

Request for Funding Allocation, which 

would support a ‘‘buy American’’ 

policy. Specifically, ADTRAN requests 

for the Application Request for Funding 

Allocation to include a question about 

the replacement equipment 

manufacturer’s country of origin. 

ADTRAN argued that such information 

collection would be consistent with the 

Open RAN-related line items. The 

Bureau finds that including a ‘‘country 

of origin’’ question on the Application 

Request for Funding Allocation will 

further help the Commission track and 

analyze technology trends without 

increasing the overall burden on 

applicants. Accordingly, the Bureau will 

modify the Application Request for 

Funding Allocation to include a 

question about the replacement 

equipment manufacturer’s country of 

origin. 

9. The Rural Wireless Association 

(RWA) requested clarifications and 

additions to the FCC Form 5640 

Application Request for Funding 

Allocation. In particular, RWA argued 

that form changes were necessary 

because the Commission had yet to 

address whether there would be further 

prioritization within the three levels 

prioritized by Congress in the Secure 

and Trusted Communications Networks 

Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act). In 

the 2021 Supply Chain Order, 86 FR 

46995, August 23, 2021, (July 13, 2021), 

the Commission rejected RWA’s request 

to provide additional sub-prioritization 

categories outside of the scheme 

advanced by Congress. Thus, the Bureau 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48523 

finds the changes requested by RWA 

would be inconsistent with the 

Commission’s rules. 

10. Administrative and Form 

Consistency Changes. The Bureau will 

further require, as proposed, that 

applicants obtain and identify in their 

applications an FCC Registration 

Number (FRN) issued by the 

Commission Registration System 

(CORES), a Data Universal Numbering 

System (DUNS) number or where 

applicable, a DUNS+4 number, and that 

applicants register with the System for 

Award Management (SAM) and provide 

the SAM Commercial and Government 

Entity (CAGE) Code in their 

applications. No commenter objected to 

these proposals. An FRN is an 

identifying number that is assigned to 

entities doing business with the 

Commission. Registration in the SAM 

provides the Commission with an 

authoritative source for information 

necessary to provide funding to 

applicants and to ensure accurate 

reporting pursuant to the Federal 

Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act. The DUNS number 

or, where applicable, the DUNS+4 

number, provides necessary banking 

information to assist the Commission in 

the electronic payment of funds to 

program recipients. 

11. Separately, to reflect changes 

adopted in the 2021 Supply Chain 

Order, the Bureau modifies the question 

on the FCC Form 5640 concerning 

whether the applicant has obtained 

covered communications equipment or 

services. The Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA) 

amended the Secure Networks Act to 

modify the covered communications 

equipment and services eligible for the 

Reimbursement Program. The 

Commission in the 2021 Supply Chain 

Order, implemented these changes by 

changing its rules to limit equipment 

and services eligible for the 

reimbursement to communications 

equipment or services produced or 

provided by Huawei and ZTE that are 

purchased, leased, or otherwise 

obtained on or before June 30, 2020. 

Accordingly, the Bureau has made the 

necessary changes to the FCC Form 

5640 to ask the applicant whether it has 

‘‘previously purchased, leased or 

otherwise obtained communications 

equipment or services on the Covered 

List that were produced or provided by 

Huawei or ZTE, including their affiliates 

and subsidiaries, on or before June 30, 

2020.’’ 

12. The Bureau has also added a 

question for applicants to indicate 

whether the cost estimate provided by 

the applicant includes a technology 

upgrade over a comparable replacement. 

This information will help the Bureau 

and the Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator identify requests 

involving technology upgrades. As the 

Commission stated in the 2021 Supply 

Chain Order, ‘‘[p]articipants may obtain 

Reimbursement Program support for an 

amount equivalent to the cost estimate 

of a comparable replacement’’ but noted 

that if ‘‘a participant ultimately decides 

to upgrade to a higher quality, more 

advanced, non-comparable replacement, 

then the program participant will bear 

the difference in cost between the 

comparable replacement and the 

technology upgrade solution chosen.’’ 

The added question will help identify 

participants seeking a technology 

upgrade solution so that the 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator and the Bureau can 

review the applications accordingly. 

Participants are reminded that, when 

seeking a technology upgrade, they will 

need to include a vendor quote for the 

comparable replacement in addition to 

a vendor quote for the upgrade they 

wish to purchase. Finally, the Bureau 

has also made minor changes to the 

language of certain questions to improve 

clarity and assist applicants. 

13. The Bureau strongly encourages 

interested participants to collect the 

information needed to prepare the 

application in advance of the opening of 

the filing window. Taking proactive 

steps will facilitate the submission 

process for applicants and help them 

identify and overcome potential 

challenges in advance of a filing 

deadline. Incomplete applications may 

be dismissed by the Bureau, which 

could prevent a provider from 

participating in the Reimbursement 

Program. 

14. As proposed, the Bureau will use 

an online filing portal to receive and 

process Application Requests for 

Funding Allocation and to coordinate 

the interactions between program 

participants, the Reimbursement 

Program Fund Administrator, and the 

Bureau. No commenters addressed this 

approach. Applicants and recipients 

will electronically submit all filings 

related to the Reimbursement Program, 

including the Application Request for 

Funding Allocation, using an online 

filing portal. The Bureau will allow 

applicants to submit applications at 

either the holding company level or 

individual/subsidiary level as proposed. 

The Bureau strongly recommends, 

however, that applicants file a single 

application at the holding company 

level to optimize administrative 

efficiency by reducing the number of 

filings requiring processing. 

15. Commenters supported the 

Commission’s proposal to consider the 

use of Excel batch uploads of 

information to facilitate the completion 

of applications. To facilitate application 

preparation and ease the filing burden 

on applicants, the Bureau will develop 

the capability to allow batch uploads for 

targeted and specific portions of the 

applications. Additionally, some 

commenters requested that the 

Commission ensure there will be 

sufficient support for issues associated 

with filings in the portal. The Bureau 

agrees and will make support available 

to applicants for issues with the portal. 

Specifically, a Reimbursement Program 

Fund Administrator helpline and an 

email address will be designated for 

Reimbursement Program applicants to 

address questions related to their 

application and reimbursement request 

submissions. The Bureau will also 

provide additional details on the online 

filing process through webinars and 

other outreach activities. 

16. Timing and Length. The Bureau 

adopts its proposals related to the 

Application Request for Funding 

Allocation filing window. Per 

§ 1.50004(b) of the Commission’s rules, 

the Bureau will announce the opening 

of an initial filing window in a 

subsequent public notice when the 

online filing portal is ready to begin 

accepting applications. In that public 

notice, the Bureau will also announce 

the duration of the initial filing window. 

Consistent with the 2021 Supply Chain 

Order, the Bureau has discretion to set 

the length of the initial filing window, 

which is not limited to 30 days and may 

be longer if the Bureau finds that 

applicants need help navigating the 

application filing portal to compile the 

necessary documentation required for 

the filing requirements. RWA, in its 

comments, indicated a 60-day filing 

window would ensure that applicants 

could timely file their Application 

Requests for Funding Allocation. The 

Bureau agrees with RWA that applicants 

would benefit from having a longer 

filing window and will consider this 

comment when it determines the 

duration of the filing window. The 

Bureau is working toward a target date 

of late October for the opening of the 

filing window. The Bureau anticipates 

that the filing window period will run 

at least 60 days, and potentially longer. 

Until the filing window closes, the 

Bureau will allow applicants to initiate, 

save, submit, and make changes to 

submitted applications as proposed. 

17. In the 2021 Supply Chain Order, 

the Commission amended its rules to 

align eligibility for the Reimbursement 

Program with the CAA’s amendments to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48524 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the Secure Networks Act. Consistent 

with the CAA, as implemented by the 

2021 Supply Chain Order, participation 

in the Reimbursement Program is 

limited to providers of advanced 

communications service with 10 million 

or fewer customers. As the Commission 

determined in the 2020 Supply Chain 

Order, 86 FR 2904, January 13, 2021, 

(December 11, 2020), ‘‘customers’’ is 

interpreted to include customers of the 

applicant and customers of any affiliate 

taking advanced communications 

service from the provider and its 

affiliates as of the date the application 

is filed. Eligibility to participate in the 

Reimbursement Program is limited to 

‘‘providers of advanced 

communications service,’’ which is 

defined as providers of ‘‘high-speed, 

switched, broadband 

telecommunications capability that 

enables users to originate and receive 

high-quality voice, data, graphics, and 

video telecommunications using any 

technology with connection speeds of at 

least 200 kbps in either direction.’’ A 

school, library or health care provider, 

or consortium thereof, providing 

facilities-based non-commercial 

educational broadband service 

connections of at least 200 kbps in one 

direction would qualify as a provider of 

advanced communication service for the 

purposes of the Reimbursement Program 

and is eligible for reimbursement 

funding. The Commission in the 2021 

Supply Chain Order, also modified the 

scope of covered communications 

equipment and services eligible for 

Reimbursement Program support 

consistent with the amendments to the 

Secure Networks Act by the CAA. The 

modification limits eligibility for 

reimbursement to communications 

equipment or services produced or 

provided by Huawei or ZTE obtained on 

or before June 30, 2020. 

18. The Bureau will review, with the 

assistance of the Reimbursement 

Program Fund Administrator, 

Application Requests for Funding 

Allocation to verify Reimbursement 

Program eligibility as required by the 

Commission’s rules. The Application 

Request for Funding Allocation contains 

questions to assist with Reimbursement 

Program eligibility verification. For 

example, each applicant must answer 

‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ as to whether it is a 

provider of advanced communications 

service with 10 million or fewer 

customers. Applicants must also 

indicate ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ to whether they 

have obtained covered communications 

equipment or service eligible for 

Reimbursement Program support on or 

before June 30, 2020. In addition, 

applicants are required to identify the 

eligible covered communications 

equipment or service that they intend to 

remove, replace, and dispose of with 

Reimbursement Program support by site 

location. 

19. The standard the Commission 

adopted to determine whether a 

provider is classified as a provider of 

advanced communications service is the 

same standard used to determine 

whether a provider must file FCC Form 

477 to report broadband deployment 

data, i.e., the provision of a facilitiesbased broadband connection to an end 

user with a speed of at least 200 kbps 

in either direction. Accordingly, as part 

of the Bureau’s internal verification 

process, it will cross-check applicants 

against the list of FCC Form 477 filers 

as of the most recent filing deadline. 

Applicants not identified on the most 

recent FCC Form 477 filer list may need 

to provide additional information to 

support Reimbursement Program 

eligibility in response to a 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator request for information. 

20. The Bureau finds the validation of 

eligibility using FCC Form 477 filing 

information, coupled with requesting 

additional information evidencing 

eligibility where an entity has not 

recently filed an FCC Form 477, 

appropriate in our efforts to ensure the 

Reimbursement Program supports 

providers of advanced communications 

services with 10 million or fewer 

customers and protect against waste, 

fraud, and abuse. 

21. As required by the Secure 

Networks Act and the Commission’s 

rules, the Application Request for 

Funding Allocation requires applicants 

to submit initial estimates of costs 

reasonably incurred for the permanent 

removal, replacement, and disposal of 

covered communications equipment or 

services. Both the Secure Networks Act 

and the Commission’s rules require 

applicants to provide cost estimates in 

their applications. The Secure Networks 

Act specifically states that the 

‘‘Commission shall require an applicant 

to provide an initial reimbursement cost 

estimate at the time of application, with 

supporting materials substantiating the 

costs,’’ which the Commission ‘‘may 

require an applicant to . . . update,’’ 

and ‘‘submit additional supporting 

materials.’’ 

22. To help applicants submit cost 

estimates with their applications, the 

Commission permitted applicants to 

rely on estimated costs identified in the 

Catalog, which contains categories of 

quantifiable costs typically incurred in 

the removal, replacement, and disposal 

process. For costs not covered by the 

Catalog, or if applicants want to use a 

cost estimate that differs from the 

Catalog, the applicant can instead 

provide an individualized cost estimate 

supported by documentation (e.g., 

vendor quotes). The finalization of the 

Catalog is discussed in Part III.B of the 

PN, but here the Bureau addresses the 

proposals and comments related to the 

submission of cost estimates generally. 

23. Technology Upgrades. In the 2021 

Supply Chain Order, the Commission 

clarified that ‘‘the ‘costs reasonably 

incurred’ standard . . . make[s] 

providers responsible for the additional 

incremental cost of funding upgrades 

that exceed what is reasonably 

necessary to transition to a comparable 

replacement.’’ The Commission 

acknowledged that whether an upgrade 

is a ‘‘reasonable, comparable 

replacement necessary for the 

transition’’ to a replacement ‘‘will likely 

depend on the facts in each case.’’ The 

Commission directed the Bureau, with 

the assistance of the Reimbursement 

Program Fund Administrator, to ‘‘first 

consider whether the cost is typically 

incurred when transitioning from 

covered communications equipment 

and services to a replacement.’’ Other 

factors the Bureau may consider include 

the ‘‘costs in relation to the alternative 

equipment and services and the 

capabilities and functions performed by 

the replacement equipment and service 

as compared to the equipment and 

services removed.’’ 

24. As provided in the 2021 Supply 

Chain Order, participants may obtain 

Reimbursement Program support for an 

amount equivalent to the cost estimate 

of a comparable replacement. 

Participants electing to upgrade their 

equipment or service in excess of the 

costs of a comparable replacement, 

however, bear the difference in cost 

between the comparable replacement 

and the technology upgrade. 

Participants seeking funding for a 

technology upgrade in excess of the 

costs of a comparable replacement will 

be required to provide price quotes for 

the comparable replacement with their 

Application Request for Funding 

Allocation—they may not rely on the 

cost estimates contained in the 

Catalog—and they must also separately 

certify that the cost estimate is made in 

good faith. 

25. While the Commission encourages 

providers to upgrade their networks, 

Congress directed the Commission to 

‘‘preclude network upgrades that go 

beyond the replacement of covered 

communications equipment or services 

from eligibility.’’ Providers are 

responsible for the additional 

incremental costs of funding upgrades 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48525 

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 

applicant’s 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 

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 

Commission’s 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 Commission’s 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 

Commission’s rules that commences 

when the participant receives its initial 

draw down disbursement. 

29. The Commission’s 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 

Act, the Commission’s rules state ‘‘[i]f 

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 Commission’s 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 Commission’s 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 15- 

day cure period will commence on the 

date of the individual email notification 

is sent by the Commission and received 

by the applicant. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48526 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

32. The Bureau also broadly interprets 

the statutory 15-day opportunity to cure 

as providing all applicants an 

opportunity to cure material defects that 

would lead to the denial or partial 

denial of an Application Request for 

Funding Allocation, even filers of 

applications that were initially found 

acceptable. In those instances, should 

the Bureau subsequently find, after 

further review, that the application is 

materially deficient and subject to 

denial, the applicant will be afforded 

the 15-day cure period. 

33. Requests for Additional 

Information. During the application 

review process there may be multiple 

instances where the Reimbursement 

Program Fund Administrator seeks 

additional information from an 

applicant prior to an application being 

granted or denied. These additional 

opportunities to amend an application 

or provide supplemental information 

prior to any official decision will ensure 

that all applicants have sufficient 

opportunities to present the most 

complete application seeking 

reimbursement, and the Bureau clarifies 

that these opportunities are separate and 

distinct from, and do not count against, 

the formal 15-day opportunity to cure 

period. The Bureau finds this 

clarification of the process mitigates 

RWA’s concerns of having only a single 

15-day cure period. 

34. Amendments during the 

Application Review Period. As 

proposed, the Bureau will allow 

applicants to make amendments to the 

filings during the 90-day review period. 

Additionally, the Bureau adopts its 

proposal to deny, as a general matter, 

amendment requests to an Application 

Request for Funding Allocation that 

would result in an increase to the total 

cost estimate. The Bureau therefore 

denies RWA’s request to allow increases 

to applicant cost estimates. 

Reimbursement Program support is 

limited and subject to prioritization 

requirements should demand exceed 

supply. Allowing amendments to 

increase cost estimates would hinder 

the review of applications within the 

statutory 90-day review period, as the 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator would need to restart its 

cost estimate review for reasonableness 

with each amendment filed. Moreover, 

amendments increasing total cost 

estimate demand could ultimately delay 

the issuance of allocations to all 

participants because the Bureau and 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator will not be able to 

determine if prioritization is necessary 

until all applications are processed and 

the last application is granted. 

35. The Bureau also rejects Nokia’s 

request to allow applicants to build in 

an overrun allowance of 10% to account 

for unexpected costs. Nokia asks that 

applicants receive a funding allocation 

for 10% more than their reported cost 

estimates. Applicants are required by 

the Commission’s rules to provide goodfaith cost estimates for removal, 

replacement, and disposal. Applicants 

are thus encouraged to provide cost 

estimates that are as accurate as possible 

based on all available information. 

Allowing applicants to build in overrun 

allowances would undermine the goal 

of the Reimbursement Program of 

efficiently allocating funding support to 

help as many eligible providers as 

possible. 

36. 45-Day Extension Period. As 

proposed, and consistent with the 

Secure Networks Act, the Bureau directs 

the Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator to advise the Bureau, 

based on its initial review of the 

applications filed, whether to extend the 

90-day deadline for granting or denying 

applications by up to an additional 45- 

day period. The Reimbursement 

Program Fund Administrator shall 

indicate whether it needs additional 

time to review the applications based on 

the number and complexity of the 

applications received. If the Bureau 

finds an extension justified, it will issue 

a public notice announcing the 

extension of the 90-day review period 

by a specified duration, not to exceed 45 

days. 

37. Allocation. Based on the cost 

estimates provided by applicants, the 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator will recommend for the 

Bureau’s consideration a funding 

allocation for each approved 

application. The Bureau will review 

each recommendation and, following 

any modifications to cure deficiencies 

following the 15-day cure period, will 

either grant or deny the application and 

proceed with issuing the allocation. 

Should total allocation demand exceed 

the funding available, the 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator’s allocation 

recommendations will be adjusted in 

accordance with the prioritization 

scheme required by the amended Secure 

Networks Act and adopted by the 

Commission in the 2021 Supply Chain 

Order. 

38. No Allocation Adjustments. As 

directed by the Commission in the 2020 

Supply Chain Order, ‘‘the funding 

amount allocated represents the 

maximum amount eligible for draw 

down by an eligible provider unless a 

subsequent funding allocation is made.’’ 

Accordingly, the Bureau emphasizes 

that once it makes a funding allocation 

determination, it will not adjust the 

funding allocation amount even if there 

is a change in the participant’s plans or 

if actual costs exceed estimated costs. 

To the extent a participant requires 

funding in excess of its allocated 

amount, the participant will be required 

to file a new application in a subsequent 

filing window, if and when such a filing 

window is announced. The Bureau will 

only issue funding disbursements for 

reasonable expenses actually incurred. 

39. Allocation Announcement 

Schedule. The Bureau adopts its 

proposal to periodically release public 

notices announcing funding recipients 

and the amount of their funding 

allocations as well as to notify 

recipients directly by email. No 

commenter filed comments on this 

proposal. This approach ensures 

administrative efficiency while also 

providing transparency to 

Reimbursement Program applicants and 

recipients, as well as the public. 

40. Pursuant to the Commission’s 

rules, after eligible providers receive 

funding allocations and incur actual 

costs, they must file reimbursement 

claims along with supporting invoices 

and other cost documentation to draw 

from their allocation. Each 

Reimbursement Program recipient must 

file at least one reimbursement claim 

within one year of the approval of its 

Application Request for Funding 

Allocation. Failure to file within the 

year will result in the expiration of the 

funding allocation and the provider will 

be unable to receive any reimbursement 

funds from the allocation as the unused 

funds would revert back to the 

Reimbursement Program. The 

Commission would be able to then 

reallocate to other applications in a 

future filing window any funds from the 

expired allocation. In this section, the 

Bureau adopts proposals related to the 

filing of reimbursement claims and 

extensions of the reimbursement claim 

deadline permitted under the 

Commission’s rules. 

41. Filing Reimbursement Claim 

Requests. The Bureau adopts several of 

its proposals related to processing 

recipients’ requests for reimbursement 

and will finalize the FCC Form 5640 

Reimbursement Claim Request as 

proposed. Additionally, the Bureau 

adopts its proposal to allow recipients 

to submit multiple Reimbursement 

Claim Requests as they incur expenses 

throughout the reimbursement period. 

The Bureau, with the assistance of the 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator, will review and grant or 

deny Reimbursement Claim Requests for 

actual costs reasonably incurred. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48527 

42. The Bureau adopts the approach 

for processing Reimbursement Claim 

Requests proposed in the 

Reimbursement Process PN. 

Accordingly, using the features 

available in the online filing portal, 

recipients will be required to link actual 

costs incurred and the supporting 

invoice documentation to their itemized 

cost estimates previously filed with the 

Bureau to complete the claim. 

Recipients must submit invoices 

through the online portal as attachments 

to their Reimbursement Claim Requests. 

With each invoice submitted, recipients 

must provide specific details related to 

the invoice (vendor name, date issued, 

description of contents, etc.) to assist 

reviewers in linking invoices to specific 

itemized cost estimates. Further, 

recipients seeking disbursements must 

have previously provided a vendor and 

supplier quote associated with the 

invoice included with the Application 

Request for Funding Allocation before 

submitting the Reimbursement Claim 

Request. Recipients who have not yet 

provided a vendor and supplier quote 

associated with the invoice because they 

relied on the Catalog cost estimates 

when completing their Application 

Request for Funding Allocation will 

need to file a modification before 

submitting the Reimbursement Claim 

Request. The Reimbursement Program 

Fund Administrator will not review 

Reimbursement Claim Requests that rely 

on invoices not substantiated by a 

corresponding quote previously filed. 

43. Pursuant to the Commission’s 

rules and the 2020 Supply Chain Order, 

recipients may seek reimbursement only 

for actual expenses incurred during the 

period beginning on April 17, 2018, and 

ending at the expiration of the one-year 

removal, replacement, and disposal 

term. Consistent with the 2020 Supply 

Chain Order, the Bureau will allow 

providers to obtain reimbursement for 

costs reasonably incurred prior to the 

creation and funding of the 

Reimbursement Program, but on or after 

April 17, 2018, for the removal, 

replacement, and disposal of covered 

equipment and services. The Bureau 

must authorize the payments from the 

Reimbursement Program fund in the 

United States Treasury to providers that 

have submitted valid claims for 

reimbursement. 

44. RWA requests the Bureau allow 

the filing of requests ‘‘beyond the 

allocated funds so that the 

[Reimbursement Program] Fund 

Administrator can approve costs even 

though there may not yet be funding to 

pay such invoices.’’ The Bureau agrees, 

and the filing portal system will allow 

recipients to file Reimbursement Claim 

Requests, even when the amount 

requested exceeds the amount allocated 

to the recipient, up until the deadline 

for filing Reimbursement Claim 

Requests has expired. These requests 

will, however, remain in pending status 

if there is insufficient funding to grant 

the requests in full. 

45. Nokia requests that the 

Commission expedite disbursements to 

contractors involved in creating cost 

estimates for Application Requests for 

Funding Allocation that are initially 

accepted for filing prior to allocating the 

funds to all applicants. Specifically, it 

argues that expedited disbursements for 

costs associated with application 

preparation ‘‘will relieve financial 

stresses on the industry and encourage 

more complete and accurate 

applications.’’ The Commission’s rules, 

however, do not allow for 

disbursements prior to a funding 

allocation. Further, the Commission did 

not establish a separate disbursement 

process to reimburse for expenses 

incurred for applications initially found 

acceptable for filing. Providing a 

disbursement at this early stage would 

also trigger the recipient’s obligation to 

complete the removal, replacement, and 

disposal process within one year and 

many applicants would be unable to 

meet that deadline. That said, costs 

associated with preparing applications 

are potentially eligible for 

reimbursement and applicants may file 

reimbursement claims for such costs 

once an allocation is issued. 

46. Reimbursement Claim Request 

Deadline. All Reimbursement Claim 

Requests must be filed no later than 120 

days following the expiration of the 

removal, replacement, and disposal 

term. Prior to the expiration of the claim 

request deadline, recipients under the 

Commission’s rules are permitted to 

request and, if timely requested, will 

automatically receive a 120-day 

extension. RWA notes that the one-year 

removal, replacement, and disposal 

term can be extended and argues that 

the corresponding 120-day 

reimbursement claim deadline should 

also be extended if the underlying oneyear term is extended. The Bureau 

agrees and confirms that if the 

Commission or the Bureau extends the 

one-year removal, replacement, and 

disposal term, the corresponding 120- 

day reimbursement claim deadline will 

also be extended and start from the new 

extended term date expiration. 

47. Finally, as required by the 

Commission’s rules, after the 

Reimbursement Claim Request filing 

deadline, the remaining unclaimed 

amounts in the allocation will expire. 

The remaining funds in the expired 

allocation will be available for 

Commission reallocation in a future 

filing window. However, as proposed in 

the Reimbursement Process PN, a timely 

submitted extension request, while 

pending, will toll the expiration of the 

funding allocation. 

48. Amendments, Modifications, and 

Administrative Updates. In the 

Reimbursement Process PN, the Bureau 

sought comment on proposals to allow 

program participants to update 

information on file with the 

Commission through the filing of 

amendments, modifications, and/or 

administrative updates. The Bureau did 

not receive comments regarding 

modifications or administrative updates. 

The Bureau did, however, receive 

comments objecting to the general 

denial of amendments to the 

Application Request for Funding 

Allocation that would increase cost 

estimate submissions, as discussed 

elsewhere herein. Accordingly, the 

Bureau will allow participants to 

amend, modify, and file administrative 

updates using the online filing portal. 

49. To file an amendment the 

participant must notify the 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator of its intent to amend its 

application through the Reimbursement 

Program Fund Administrator Help Desk. 

Notification of an intent to amend 

through the Reimbursement Program 

Fund Administrator Help Desk is 

necessary to unlock the underlying 

application in the online filing portal to 

allow for the filing of an amendment. 

This notice of intent to amend alerts the 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator to pause application 

processing pending the filing of 

additional changes that may impact the 

review process. Amendment filings are 

only permitted for underlying filings 

that are in a pending status. 

50. The Bureau also will allow 

modification filings after an application 

is granted. For a granted Application 

Request for Funding Allocation, the 

Bureau will allow recipients to submit 

modification filings to change itemized 

expenses and locations identified on 

their filings and to provide vendor and 

supplier quotes for review by the 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator. The Bureau reiterates 

that if the modification filing would 

change the cost of the project, it will not 

alter the funding allocation issued. 

Additionally, participants are allowed 

to file administrative updates for 

routine, non-material changes to filings 

such as changes to the applicant’s 

contact information (e.g., address, 

phone number, and contact name). The 

online filing portal will accept and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48528 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

automatically process administrative 

updates once filed. 

51. Notifications of Changes in 

Ownership. Recognizing that the 

Reimbursement Program will be 

administered over multiple years and 

changes in ownership may occur, the 

Bureau adopts its proposal to adapt the 

online filing system to account for 

changes in ownership, including 

changes due to bankruptcy. Specifically, 

the Bureau will institute a streamlined 

process whereby, post-consummation, 

the recipient of record will file a 

notification signed by both parties to the 

transaction that includes an explanation 

of the ownership changes. In the event 

of an involuntary change of control and/ 

or ownership, such as, but not limited 

to, the appointment of a trustee in 

bankruptcy or a receiver, the process 

shall include a mechanism for a rightful 

recipient to file the notification without 

the signature of the other party to the 

transaction upon a showing of 

appropriate documentation regarding 

the change of control and/or ownership. 

The Bureau, with the assistance of the 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator, will determine the 

amount of the funding allocation 

remaining, i.e., the amount not yet 

claimed and disbursed through the 

reimbursement claim process, and how 

to handle transactions involving the 

acquisition of discrete network 

components, e.g., the sale of a portion 

of the network and not the entire 

network. Commenters support this 

approach. The Bureau notes, however, 

that while it is not requiring prior 

approval for new owners to participate 

in the Reimbursement Program, the new 

owners would still have to be eligible to 

participate in the program to receive 

funding under the Commission’s rules. 

Providers with more than 10 million 

customers are not eligible to participate 

in the Reimbursement Program. 

52. Consistent with the Secure 

Networks Act, the Commission’s rules 

require Reimbursement Program 

participants to complete the removal, 

replacement, and disposal process 

within one year from the initial 

disbursement of funds. The initial 

disbursement is deemed to occur on the 

date on which the Commission first 

distributes reimbursement funds to the 

recipient. Participants must file to 

receive their initial disbursement within 

one year of receiving the funding 

allocation approval. 

53. Both the Secure Networks Act and 

the Commission’s rules authorize 

extensions of the one-year removal, 

replacement, and disposal term. 

Specifically, under § 1.50004(h)(1) of 

the Reimbursement Program rules, the 

Commission may grant a general 

extension of the one-year term by a 

period of six months to all 

Reimbursement Program recipients if 

the Commission: (1) Finds the supply of 

replacement communications 

equipment or services needed by the 

recipients to achieve the purposes of the 

Reimbursement Program is inadequate 

to meet the needs of the recipients; and 

(2) provides notice and detailed 

justification for granting the extension 

to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

of the Senate. In addition, the Bureau 

may grant individual extensions of time 

for a period not to exceed six months on 

a case-by-case basis. The Commission 

has interpreted the Secure Networks Act 

to allow grant of multiple individual 

extensions of time to a participant. To 

grant an extension, the Bureau must 

find that, due to no fault of the 

recipient, such recipient is unable to 

complete the permanent removal, 

replacement, and disposal by the end of 

the term. 

54. Nokia requested a blanket 6- 

month extension of time, noting that 

many applicants will have difficulty 

adhering to a one-year deadline for 

removal, replacement, and disposal 

because, under normal circumstances, 

the process would take approximately 

one to three years. Additionally, Nokia 

notes that a high number of carriers 

attempting to replace equipment during 

the same period of time may delay the 

process. The Competitive Carriers 

Association (CCA) also requested a 

blanket 6-month extension, raising a 

similar concern in its comments, 

recognizing that carriers are ‘‘managing 

labor shortages, including limited 

availability of skilled engineers and 12 

tower crews, and an extension will give 

carriers a more realistic opportunity to 

navigate staffing challenges.’’ Copper 

Valley Wireless, Inc. (Cooper Valley 

Wireless) asserts that the unique issues 

facing Alaskan providers will result in 

multiple extension requests. Thus, 

Copper Valley Wireless requests 

successive blanket extensions for 

Alaskan providers. 

55. The Bureau finds these requests 

for an extension of the term for all 

future participants are outside the scope 

of the Reimbursement Process PN, and 

it, therefore, declines to address these 

requests. In addition, the Bureau finds 

it premature to consider a general 

extension before the Reimbursement 

Program is even launched and any 

removal, replacement, and disposal 

terms are established. Granting an 

across-the-board extension at this 

juncture is counter to Congress’ intent of 

having a one-year term. 

56. In addition, some commenters 

have expressed concern that the 

Commission appears to favor O–RAN 

replacement options and requests that 

the Commission not grant an applicant’s 

extension request solely because of the 

replacement choice. As the Bureau did 

not seek comment on proposals related 

to granting term extensions, it finds 

these comments are also outside the 

scope of the Reimbursement Process PN. 

These comments more accurately relate 

to the 2021 Supply Chain Order, where 

the Commission said that some 

replacement options, such as O–RAN or 

virtual RAN, may require additional 

time for system integration. While the 

Bureau recognizes it may take longer to 

implement certain technological 

solutions, that is only one factor among 

many that could justify an extension. 

Regardless, the Bureau disagrees that 

the Commission has demonstrated a 

preference for O–RAN technology 

solutions as compared to any other 

solution. 

57. To help mitigate against waste, 

fraud, and abuse, and consistent with 

the Secure Networks Act, the 

Commission required recipients to 

submit status updates, spending reports, 

and final certifications and updates. The 

Bureau takes this opportunity to 

reiterate these requirements as set forth 

in the Secure Networks Act and the 

Commission’s rules. 

58. Status Updates. The Secure 

Networks Act requires that ‘‘[n]ot less 

frequently than once every 90 days 

beginning on the date on which the 

Commission approves an application for 

a reimbursement under the Program, the 

recipient of the reimbursement shall 

submit to the Commission a status 

update on the work of the recipient to 

permanently remove, replace, and 

dispose of the covered communications 

equipment or services.’’ The Secure 

Networks Act also provides that ‘‘[n]ot 

earlier than 30 days after the date on 

which the Commission receives a status 

update,’’ the Commission ‘‘shall make 

such status update public on the 

website of the Commission.’’ 

59. In the 2020 Supply Chain Order, 

the Commission required recipients to 

file the first status updates within 90 

days of receiving their funding 

allocations. In the status updates, 

recipients are required to report on the 

efforts undertaken and challenges 

encountered in permanently removing, 

replacing, and disposing of their 

covered communications equipment or 

services. Recipients shall also report in 

detail on the availability of replacement 

equipment in the marketplace so the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48529 

Commission can assess whether a 

general, six-month extension permitted 

by the statute is appropriate. Each status 

update must include a certification that 

affirms the information in the update is 

accurate. The obligation to file status 

updates expires after the recipient has 

notified the Commission of the 

completion of the permanent removal, 

replacement, and disposal of the 

covered communications equipment or 

service pursuant to a final certification. 

Status updates will be public, consistent 

with the Commission’s rules, and the 

Commission directed the Bureau to post 

on the Commission’s website the status 

update filings within 30 days of 

submission. 

60. Spending Reports. The Secure 

Networks Act requires Reimbursement 

Program recipients to submit ‘‘reports 

regarding how reimbursement funds 

have been spent, including detailed 

accounting of the covered 

communications equipment or services 

permanently removed and disposed of, 

and the replacement equipment or 

services purchased, rented, leased or 

otherwise obtained, using 

reimbursement funds.’’ In the 2020 

Supply Chain Order, the Commission 

required Reimbursement Program 

recipients to file spending reports 

within 10 calendar days after the end of 

January and July, starting with the 

recipient’s initial draw down of 

disbursement funds and terminating 

once the recipient has filed a final 

spending report showing the 

expenditure of all funds received as 

compared to the estimated costs 

submitted. The Commission directed 

‘‘program participants to submit the 

final spending report no later than 60 

days following the expiration of the 

program participant’s reimbursement 

claim deadline.’’ The Bureau is required 

to make spending reports, except for 

detailed accounting information, 

available to the public via a portal on 

the Commission’s website. 

61. Final Certifications. Within 10 

days following the expiration of the 

removal, replacement, and disposal 

term, recipients must file a final 

certification with the Commission. The 

final certification must indicate whether 

the recipient has fully complied with all 

terms and conditions of the program, 

the commitments made in its 

application, and the timeline submitted. 

The final certification must also indicate 

whether the recipient has permanently 

removed covered communications 

equipment and services that were in its 

network as of the date of application 

submission. Pursuant to the Secure 

Networks Act and the 2020 Supply 

Chain Order, if an applicant indicates 

that it has not fully complied with all 

terms of program participation, the 

applicant must file an updated final 

certification ‘‘when the recipient has 

fully complied.’’ Program participants 

failing to timely submit a final 

certification or updated final 

certification may be subject to 

forfeitures and other penalties. 

62. The Secure Networks Act directed 

the Commission to make public on the 

Commission’s website status updates 

submitted by recipients under the 

Reimbursement Program. In the 2020 

Supply Chain Order, the Commission 

directed the Bureau to make filed 

spending reports available to the public 

through an online portal. The 

Commission also directed us to treat as 

presumptively confidential detailed 

accounting information on the covered 

communications equipment or services 

subject to removal, replacement, and 

disposal, and the replacement 

equipment or services being reimbursed, 

and to withhold such disaggregated 

information from routine public 

inspection. The Commission also 

directed us to treat as presumptively 

confidential ‘‘[o]ther information, such 

as location of the equipment and 

services; removal or replacement plans 

that include sensitive information; the 

specific type of equipment or service; 

and any other provider specific 

information,’’ which the Commission 

found would likely qualify as trade 

secrets under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) the public 

release of which could raise security 

and confidentiality concerns. However, 

as a condition of receiving funding, the 

Commission required Reimbursement 

Program recipients to provide consent to 

allow vendors or contractors used by the 

recipient to release confidential 

information to an auditor, reviewer, or 

other representative as part of the 

auditing process, which is discussed in 

further detail in Part III.A.13 of the PN. 

63. The Bureau will treat certain 

specified information submitted by 

Reimbursement Program participants as 

public or presumptively confidential 

consistent with the Secure Networks 

Act, the Freedom of Information Act, 

and the Commission’s rules. As 

proposed in the Reimbursement Process 

PN, and consistent with the 

Commission’s rules, the Bureau will 

make publicly available, through an 

online search portal, general and 

summary information submitted by 

participants. This includes the name of 

the applicant who submitted a FCC 

Form 5640, Application Request for 

Funding Allocation, and the funding 

amount requested. This also includes 

the Reimbursement Program 

participants selected for funding 

allocation and the funding amount 

awarded. Consistent with the 2020 

Supply Chain Order, the Bureau will 

also make public on the Commission’s 

website recipients’ filed spending 

reports. The Bureau finds that the 

public interest is best served by making 

this information available to the public 

to ensure transparency and 

accountability. 

64. Commenters agreed with the 

proposal to treat certain sensitive 

information collected as part of the 

Program as presumptively confidential 

and withhold that information from 

routine public inspection. For example, 

ADTRAN ‘‘fully supports the proposal 

to maintain the confidentiality of 

proprietary information with regard to 

the prices of the replacement equipment 

and services.’’ ADTRAN asserts that 

‘‘such information constitutes trade 

secrets,’’ and ADTRAN ‘‘takes steps to 

protect that information by requiring its 

customers (and potential customers) to 

enter into non-disclosure agreements to 

maintain confidentiality.’’ ADTRAN 

agrees that ‘‘information on the specific 

replacement equipment and location of 

that equipment . . . should not be made 

publicly-available, particularly because 

such information on what is critical 

infrastructure could provide roadmaps 

to malefactors.’’ RWA agrees with the 

proposal to treat as presumptively 

confidential and withhold from public 

inspection information including 

‘‘detailed accounting information,’’ 

‘‘location of the equipment and services; 

removal or replacement plans that 

include sensitive information; the 

specific type of equipment and service; 

and any other provider specific 

information that qualifies as trade 

secrets under the Freedom of 

Information Act.’’ 

65. Accordingly, as contemplated by 

the 2020 Supply Chain Order, and 

proposed in the Reimbursement Process 

PN, the Bureau finds that certain 

information likely constitutes 

confidential commercial or financial 

information or trade secrets under the 

FOIA, and consistent with the 2020 

Supply Chain Order, and the 

Commission’s rules, the Bureau will 

treat this information as presumptively 

confidential and will withhold from 

routine public inspection such 

information, including: 

• Detailed accounting information on 

the covered communications equipment 

or services removed, replaced, and 

disposed of, and the replacement 

equipment or services purchased, 

rented, leased, or otherwise obtained 

using Reimbursement Program funds; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48530 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

• Vendor price quotes submitted with 

the FCC Form 5640, Application 

Request for Funding Allocation, or in a 

Modification filing; 

• Invoices submitted with the FCC 

Form 5640, Reimbursement Claim 

Requests; 

• Equipment or services location, 

including address, latitude/longitude, 

etc.; 

• Removal or replacement plans that 

include sensitive information; 

• Specific equipment or service type; 

• Other provider-specific 

information; and, 

• Specific timeline for the permanent 

removal, replacement, and disposal of 

covered communications equipment 

and services. 

The Bureau finds, consistent with the 

2020 Supply Chain Order, that this 

information would likely qualify as 

confidential commercial or financial 

information or trade secrets under the 

Freedom of Information Act and 

therefore should be withheld from 

routine public inspection. 

66. Finally, the Bureau adopts the 

approach proposed in the 

Reimbursement Process PN, to allow 

filers uploading attachments to the 

online portal to categorize whether the 

attachment is ‘‘confidential’’ or 

‘‘public.’’ RWA argues that ‘‘anything 

attached to the FCC Form 5640 by an 

applicant that is clearly marked 

confidential should be treated as such 

and withheld from public inspection.’’ 

The Bureau clarifies that participants 

may submit requests to treat 

documentation as confidential 

information to be withheld from public 

inspection; however, such requests must 

be consistent with FOIA and the 

Commission’s rules. Requests for 

confidential treatment that are 

overbroad or otherwise inconsistent 

with our rules will be rejected. 

Attachments designated as 

‘‘confidential’’ will be withheld from 

routine public inspection, subject to 

FOIA and the Commission’s rules, 

whereas attachments designated as 

‘‘public’’ may be made publicly 

available. 

67. The Secure Networks Act directed 

the Commission to ‘‘take all necessary 

steps to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse 

with respect to the Program,’’ including 

‘‘regular audits and reviews of 

reimbursements under the Program to 

confirm that recipients of such 

reimbursements are complying with this 

Act,’’ and ‘‘random field investigations 

to ensure that recipients of 

reimbursements under the Program are 

performing the work such recipients are 

required to perform.’’ In the 2020 

Supply Chain Order, the Commission 

adopted a number of measures as 

directed by the Secure Networks Act to 

combat waste, fraud, and abuse, 

including requiring audits, reviews, and 

field inspections. In particular, the 

Commission directed the Office of the 

Managing Director (OMD), or a thirdparty identified by OMD, to prepare a 

system to audit Reimbursement Program 

recipients to ensure compliance with 

the Commission’s rules. Recipients are 

subject to audits and other 

investigations to evaluate their 

compliance with the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for the program. 

To facilitate audits and field 

investigations, recipients must provide 

consent to allow vendors or contractors 

used by the recipient to release 

confidential information to the auditor, 

reviewer, or other representative. 

Recipients must also allow any 

representative appointed by the 

Commission to enter the premises of the 

recipient to conduct compliance 

inspections. 

68. In the 2021 Supply Chain Order, 

the Commission delegated financial 

oversight of the Reimbursement 

Program to OMD, in coordination with 

the Bureau and the Reimbursement 

Program Fund Administrator, to ensure 

that all financial aspects of the program 

have adequate internal controls. OMD, 

in coordination the Bureau, may issue 

additional directions to the 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator and program participants 

in furtherance of its responsibilities. 

The Bureau will continue to work with 

OMD, any third-party identified by 

OMD, and the Reimbursement Program 

Fund Administrator to develop an audit, 

review, and field investigations process 

for the Reimbursement Program to 

protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Pursuant to the 2020 Supply Chain 

Order, participants must allow any 

representative appointed by the 

Commission to enter the participant’s 

premises to conduct compliance 

inspections so, at a minimum, the audit 

process may include site visits to 

participant’s premises to conduct these 

compliance inspections. 

B. Catalog of Eligible Expenses and 

Estimated Costs 

69. In this section, the Bureau adopts 

a final Catalog which applicants may 

rely on, where applicable, when 

submitting cost estimates in their 

Application Request for Funding 

Allocation, and the Bureau provides 

additional guidance regarding whether 

certain costs are reasonably incurred 

and may be reimbursable under the 

Reimbursement Program. 

70. Section 4(d)(1) of the Secure 

Networks Act requires the Commission 

to ‘‘develop a list of suggested 

replacements’’ for covered equipment 

and services and for applicants to 

submit ‘‘initial reimbursement cost 

estimate[s] at the time of application.’’ 

To accomplish this objective, the 

Commission delegated authority to the 

Bureau to develop and finalize a Cost 

Catalog in the 2020 Supply Chain Order. 

The Commission’s rules provide that 

eligible providers may rely upon the 

predetermined estimated costs 

identified in the Catalog when 

submitting their cost estimates with 

their requests for funding allocation. 

The Bureau contracted with Widelity 

Inc. (Widelity) to produce a preliminary 

catalog containing a non-exhaustive list 

of cost categories and a range of cost 

estimates for communications 

equipment and services potentially 

eligible for reimbursement. Widelity 

developed the preliminary catalog based 

on a series of confidential interviews 

with communications industry 

stakeholders to understand the process 

and costs associated with removing, 

replacing, and disposing of covered 

communications equipment and 

services. In the Catalog PN, the Bureau 

sought comment on the preliminary 

catalog, the suggested ranges of 

estimated costs and cost categories 

identified therein, and how the Catalog 

should inform the Reimbursement 

Program. Widelity subsequently 

conducted a thorough review of the 

preliminary catalog, based on comments 

received in response to the Catalog PN, 

and conducted additional engagement 

with communications industry 

stakeholders and the Bureau, resulting 

in additional improvements to the 

Catalog. 

71. After considering comments 

received in response to the Catalog PN, 

and in consultation with Widelity, the 

Bureau revises and finalizes the Catalog 

as set forth in this document. The final 

Catalog includes as an attachment a 

chart indexing changes from the 

preliminary catalog to the final Catalog. 

In particular, the Bureau added an index 

number to reference line item cost 

categories, clarified certain expenses 

that it finds are highly variable, clarified 

units of measurement, clarified cost 

categories and descriptions, amended 

certain ranges of cost estimates, and 

corrected typographical errors. For the 

reasons discussed in this document, the 

Bureau adopts the Catalog in Appendix 

C of the PN for use in the 

Reimbursement Program. The Catalog 

will be made available on the 

Commission’s website, and the line 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48531 

items and cost estimate averages taken 

from the ranges identified in the Catalog 

will be incorporated into the online 

filing portal for use by applicants when 

completing the FCC Form 5640, 

Application Request for Funding 

Allocation. 

72. The Catalog identifies cost 

categories and a range of estimated costs 

that providers of advanced 

communications services would 

typically incur when removing, 

replacing, and disposing of covered 

communications equipment or service. 

The Bureau emphasizes the Catalog is 

not intended to be a definitive or 

exhaustive list of all reimbursable 

expenses but rather is an additional tool 

to help applicants with their application 

submissions. Inclusion or exclusion in 

the Catalog of a particular category of 

costs should not be interpreted as a 

determination whether the expense will 

be eligible for reimbursement. 

Applicants may reference the line item 

cost estimates identified in the Catalog 

when submitting their initial cost 

estimates. Consistent with the Secure 

Networks Act, applicants relying on the 

Catalog when requesting a funding 

allocation will still be required to 

provide supporting materials 

substantiating their cost estimates with 

documentation such as quotes or 

invoices before receiving a 

disbursement of funds for 

reimbursement. To the extent that 

certain reimbursable expenses are not 

explicitly listed in the Catalog or certain 

cost categories do not fully account for 

an applicant’s reimbursable expenses, 

applicants may request reimbursement 

by submitting individualized cost 

estimates, with supporting materials 

substantiating the costs. The cost 

estimates identified in the final Catalog 

do not guarantee the ultimate 

disbursement of funds for any 

individual expense. Participants’ 

requests for reimbursement will be 

evaluated based on supporting 

documentation regardless of whether 

the initial cost estimates were based on 

the Catalog or individualized cost 

estimates. 

73. As noted in this document, cost 

estimates based on the Catalog will be 

the average of the low- and high-end 

range of cost estimates identified in the 

Catalog. If an applicant believes a cost 

estimate identified in the Catalog does 

not fully account for its specific 

circumstances or a cost category is not 

identified in the Catalog, the applicant 

may provide an individualized cost 

estimate. Applicants providing 

individualized cost estimates will be 

required to submit additional 

supporting documentation (e.g., vendor 

quotes) and certify that the cost estimate 

is made in good faith. All cost estimates 

are subject to review by Commission 

staff, with the assistance of the 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator, to ensure that an 

expense is eligible for reimbursement 

under the costs reasonably incurred 

standard. 

74. The Bureau received 13 comments 

in response to the Catalog PN, including 

comments addressing the preliminary 

catalog. Comments addressing the 

preliminary catalog were generally 

favorable; however, commenters also 

proposed changes to the preliminary 

catalog. Commenters requested 

clarifications to the units of 

measurement for particular cost 

estimates, requested modifications or 

clarifications to certain cost categories, 

and requested modifications to certain 

ranges of cost estimates. Commenters 

proposed changes to the access layer, 

distribution layer, and core layer 

equipment, as well as software and 

services. Commenters also requested 

clarification on whether certain costs 

are reimbursable under the 

Reimbursement Program. The Bureau 

addresses these comments in the 

following. The Bureau also highlights 

modifications to the Catalog proposed 

by Widelity based on its own thorough 

review of the preliminary catalog and 

additional engagement with 

communications industry stakeholders. 

75. Clarifying Units of Measurement. 

USTelecom—The Broadband 

Association (USTelecom) asked the 

Commission to clarify whether 

wavelength division multiplexing 

(WDM) and optical transport network 

(OTN) equipment ‘‘prices are ‘per node’ 

and . . . not ‘per route.’ ’’ WDM and 

OTN equipment is typically priced in 

the communications industry on a per 

node basis as opposed to per route, and 

the Bureau clarifies that the range of 

cost estimates for WDM and OTN 

equipment in the Catalog is priced on a 

per node basis. USTelecom also asked 

the Commission to clarify ‘‘whether the 

range of prices identified in the 

preliminary Catalog for the ‘existing 

co[ ]location’ expense type’’ are ‘‘permonth or a flat fee for each lease.’’ 

Because colocation is typically priced 

on a per-site, flat-fee basis, as opposed 

to a per-month basis, the Bureau revises 

the Catalog to clarify that the range of 

cost estimates for colocation is priced 

on a per-site basis to more accurately 

describe the per-unit cost of these 

expenses. 

76. Requests to Include Additional 

Cost Categories. CCA asked the 

Commission to ‘‘include in the Cost 

Catalog an entry for preparation of the 

cell site closeout package, which may 

include photos, red line/as-built 

drawings, documents, and other 

relevant information to confirm that the 

site has been completed to specified 

standards and requirements.’’ The 

Bureau agrees. The Bureau finds that 

cell site closeout costs may be 

reasonably necessary to remove and 

replace covered communications 

equipment or services, and revised the 

Catalog to include under the ‘‘Services,’’ 

‘‘Site Work’’ cost category, a subcategory 

for ‘‘Closeout Package—Microwave’’ 

and general ‘‘Closeout Package.’’ The 

range of cost estimates for these new 

cost categories was developed by 

Widelity based on confidential 

interviews with communications 

industry stakeholders. 

77. RWA requested the Bureau add an 

‘‘Attorney fees’’ cost category to the 

Catalog for ‘‘legal fees spent on the 

advocacy surrounding the development 

of the rules,’’ or ‘‘legal fees related to the 

ongoing rulemaking process.’’ The 

Bureau notes that the preliminary 

catalog included a ‘‘Participation in FCC 

Rulemaking’’ cost category with a range 

of cost estimates. The Bureau denies 

RWA’s request because attorney’s fees 

related to the rulemaking proceeding are 

not reasonably necessary for the 

removal, replacement, and disposal of 

covered communications equipment or 

services. The Bureau modifies the 

Catalog to remove the ‘‘Participation in 

FCC Rulemaking’’ cost category and 

range of cost estimates identified in the 

preliminary Catalog. The Bureau 

clarifies, however, that certain 

attorney’s fees and legal expenses 

incurred for purposes of participating in 

the Reimbursement Program, such as 

preparing application forms, 

reimbursement forms, extension 

requests, and waiver requests, may be 

reimbursable to the extent they are 

reasonably incurred for the removal, 

replacement, and disposal of covered 

communications equipment and 

services and the allocation request is 

substantiated with supporting 

documentation. The Bureau also notes 

that, for example, attorney fees 

associated with negotiating and 

reviewing vendor contracts and legal 

fees associated with zoning and 

permitting are included in the Catalog 

range of cost estimates and potentially 

eligible for reimbursement. 

78. Clarifying Reimbursable Expenses. 

CCA asked the Commission to provide 

‘‘additional clarification on allowable 

reimbursements for internal employee 

time, including what type of 

documentation will be required.’’ As 

CCA noted, the preliminary catalog 

included a range of cost estimates 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48532 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

related to internal labor costs, including 

carrier internal project management. 

The Bureau recognizes that the 

Reimbursement Program will demand 

significant employee time and 

resources. Internal labor costs, like other 

program costs, are reimbursable to the 

extent they are reasonably incurred 

removing, replacing, and disposing of 

covered communications equipment 

and services. However, for internal labor 

costs to be reimbursable, they must be 

entirely related to transition efforts, that 

is, the costs would not have been 

incurred but for Reimbursement 

Program participation removing, 

replacing, and disposing of covered 

communications equipment and 

services. In other words, participants are 

only eligible to recover that portion of 

employee time attributable to 

transitioning equipment and services, 

not unrelated employee time or 

expenses related to overhead. Labor 

costs associated with normal system or 

network maintenance and 

administration, conducted in the 

ordinary course of business, are not 

reimbursable. The Bureau will review 

internal labor costs with heightened 

scrutiny to ensure that such expenses 

are reasonably necessary for removal, 

replacement, and disposal of covered 

communications equipment or services, 

and to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse in 

the Program. Generally, the Bureau 

expects cost estimates for internal labor 

to be lower than cost estimates for 

outside services for the same work. 

79. The Bureau finds that the Catalog 

adequately identifies and accounts for 

employee time, i.e., internal labor costs, 

that could be quantified for a range of 

cost estimates based on pricing data 

submitted by industry stakeholders to 

Widelity. For example, the Catalog 

includes a range of cost estimates for 

internal labor including project 

management and engineer/staff network 

operations which are on a per person 

per month basis. The Bureau makes no 

changes to the Catalog with respect to 

internal labor costs. Internal labor costs 

identified in the Catalog are 

reimbursable to the extent they are 

reasonably incurred removing, 

replacing, and disposing of covered 

communications equipment and 

services. Applicants may rely on the 

Catalog to estimate internal labor costs 

for their application submissions where 

applicable but will be required to 

submit additional documentation 

accounting for actual costs during the 

reimbursement stage to ensure that 

reimbursement funds are entirely 

related to transition efforts. 

80. Applicants seeking reimbursement 

for internal labor costs that are not 

identified in the Catalog will be 

required to submit individualized cost 

estimates and documentation and 

certify that the estimates are made in 

good faith. In particular, to ensure that 

internal labor costs are entirely related 

to transition efforts, such costs must be 

estimated on a per-hour and per-project 

basis, providing both an estimate of 

labor hours to be incurred for each 

project and the internal labor rate to be 

used. Evidence of the salary/hourly rate 

of internal labor must be provided to 

establish the reimbursable portion of 

labor costs. Labor rates may be inclusive 

of salary and benefits. When submitting 

cost estimates for internal labor costs, 

the applicant should provide the 

employee hourly rates, a description of 

the work performed, and the number of 

hours to be worked (e.g., copies of 

employee timesheets or paystubs with 

hours worked, and Internal Revenue 

Service Form W–2, Wage and Tax 

Statement). 

81. The Bureau will exercise its 

discretion in determining whether the 

hours and/or labor rates satisfy the costs 

reasonably incurred standard. When 

submitting actual costs for 

reimbursement for internal labor, 

participants should provide: A report 

listing the hours incurred for each 

transition task, the applicable labor rate, 

and the resulting cost; and copies of 

employee timesheets showing hours 

worked on each transition task, by day. 

Timesheet hours must match the totals 

reported by the task in this document. 

Timesheets either may come from the 

participants’ time and expense reporting 

systems or can be manually prepared 

using spreadsheets or other means. The 

Bureau may request additional 

supporting information for internal 

labor costs, such as payroll, human 

resources, or financial records. 

82. RWA argues that costs associated 

with ‘‘long term maintenance contracts 

or managed service contracts to 

maintain and operate Huawei and ZTE 

networks may need to be terminated 

prior to the service terms being 

completed and that the costs associated 

with the termination . . . should be 

reimbursed as part of the costs 

associated with replacing the 

networks.’’ Observing that ‘‘other 

prepaid service contracts may need to 

be terminated prior to the service terms 

being completed,’’ RWA argues that 

‘‘[t]hese costs should be eligible for 

reimbursement and included in the Cost 

Catalog because they are outlays already 

made that are not otherwise 

recoverable.’’ The Bureau rejects RWA’s 

request because these expenses are 

incurred to maintain Huawei and ZTE 

networks that the Reimbursement 

Program is designed to replace. These 

expenses are not reasonably necessary 

to remove, replace, and dispose of 

covered communications equipment 

and services. 

83. The Bureau does, however, clarify 

that early termination fees incurred by 

providers terminating long term service 

contracts, managed service contracts, or 

other prepaid contracts entered into 

prior to their application submission 

may be reimbursable to the extent they 

are reasonably necessary for removing, 

replacing, and disposing of covered 

communications equipment and 

services. The Bureau will not reimburse 

early termination fees for contracts 

entered into after June 30, 2020, as 

Congress has established that date as the 

eligibility cut-off for eligible expenses. 

Beyond our statutory obligation, after 

June 30, 2020, the date on which the 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau released orders designating 

Huawei and ZTE as covered companies 

under our rule § 54.9, no Universal 

Service Funds could be used to 

purchase, obtain, maintain, improve, 

modify, or support Huawei or ZTE 

equipment or services. The Bureau 

declines to reward business decisions 

where a participant should be on notice 

to not enter into arrangements with such 

fees given the program’s goals to 

incentivize providers to remove, 

replace, and dispose of Huawei and ZTE 

equipment and services. Participants 

seeking reimbursement for early 

termination fees must provide 

supporting documentation, including 

copies of vendor contracts with the 

early termination fee provisions. 

84. CCA requested that certain 

integration costs be included in the 

Catalog. CCA requested that any 

Citizens Broadband Radio Service 

(CBRS) equipment being replaced 

should include ‘‘the costs of reintegration of the new CBRS equipment 

with Spectrum Access Systems.’’ 

Because Spectrum Access Systems 

(SAS) integration costs may be 

reasonably necessary to replace CBRS 

equipment, these costs may be 

reimbursable under the program. The 

Bureau revises the Catalog to include 

cost categories for access layer and 

distribution layer SAS Integration Costs 

and a range of cost estimates based on 

Widelity’s confidential interviews with 

communications industry stakeholders. 

85. CCA also requested inclusion in 

the Catalog of a cost category for ‘‘thirdparty integration costs’’ such as ‘‘billing 

software, messaging platforms, roaming 

services, WEAS systems, and robocall 

blocking services.’’ While these 

expenses are not in the Catalog, some of 

these expenses may be reimbursable. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48533 

However, the Bureau rejects CCA’s 

request because network integration 

costs are highly variable, making it 

difficult to develop a quantifiable range 

of cost estimates based on the record 

and information provided by 

communications industry stakeholders 

to Widelity. As noted in this document, 

the final Catalog does, however, include 

specific integration costs, such as SAS 

integration, that are specific to the type 

of equipment which may be eligible for 

reimbursement. Participants seeking 

reimbursement for network integration 

costs not identified in the Catalog will 

need to provide individualized cost 

estimates with supporting 

documentation. 

86. RWA asked the Commission to 

modify the Catalog to include ‘‘VoLTE 

compatible replacement subscriber 

handsets’’ to replace ‘‘CDMA-capable 

voice services on some handheld 

devices.’’ Relatedly, CCA asked the 

Commission to modify the Catalog to 

clarify that replacements to ‘‘add, 

upgrade, or replace HSS, IMS, PCRF, 

etc. to support UMTS/LTE/VoLTE 

devices’’ fall within the catalog’s 

‘‘purview.’’ In the 2021 Supply Chain 

Order, however, the Commission 

rejected RWA’s request, finding 

‘‘CDMA-capable handsets not produced 

or provided by Huawei or ZTE ineligible 

for reimbursement under the 

Reimbursement Program rules because 

replacing such handsets with VoLTEcompatible subscriber handsets is not 

reasonably necessary to the removal, 

replacement, and disposal of covered 

communications equipment or service.’’ 

Consistent with the 2021 Supply Chain 

Order, the Bureau declines to modify 

the Catalog to include handsets and 

other end user customer premises 

equipment (CPE) outside of the limited 

CPE already accounted for in the 

Catalog. 

87. RWBC asked the Commission to 

modify the Catalog to ‘‘include cost 

estimates for deploying fiber backhaul 

equipment,’’ arguing that ‘‘fiber 

backhaul facilities should be considered 

comparable to microwave backhaul 

facilities under the ‘Emerging 

Technologies’ compatibility standard.’’ 

Similarly, USTelecom asked the 

Commission to clarify whether leasing 

‘‘additional capacity on a long-term 

basis (like a fiber IRU) that would 

support the parallel network’’ is eligible 

for reimbursement. In the 2021 Supply 

Chain Order, however, the Commission 

did not consider ‘‘replacing microwave 

backhaul with fiber backhaul . . . 

necessary for the removal, replacement, 

and disposal of’’ covered 

communications equipment or 

services.’’ Instead, the Commission 

viewed such ‘‘fiber link replacements as 

a technology upgrade, and not a 

reasonable, comparable replacement.’’ 

As the Commission explained in the 

2021 Supply Chain Order, if the 

participant decides to upgrade its 

equipment, it will bear the difference in 

cost between the comparable 

replacement and the upgrade, must 

provide price quotes for the comparable 

replacement with its application, as 

opposed to relying on the cost estimates 

in the Catalog, and must certify that the 

estimated cost is in good faith. Fiber 

backhaul facilities and additional 

capacity would be considered an 

upgrade, not a reasonable, comparable 

replacement. Accordingly, the Bureau 

declines to add this equipment as a 

separate cost category to the Catalog. 

88. Ericsson argues that the 

preliminary catalog ‘‘only included 

Internet of Things (‘IoT’) software 

licenses associated with core network 

nodes,’’ which does ‘‘not reflect the 

need to replace existing Machine-toMachine (‘M2M’) and IoT software 

licenses in the Radio Access Networks 

(‘RAN’) nodes.’’ Ericsson asked the 

Commission to ‘‘expand the current 

Catalog to include specific RAN 

software licenses for existing 

functionality, such as M2M, Cat-M1, 

Narrowband IoT, and similar items’’ 

because it would ‘‘ensure the 

continuation of IoT capabilities in one 

frequency band in all sectors of an 

existing LTE site with typical 2, 4, and 

8-port radios.’’ The Bureau declines to 

implement Ericsson’s request because 

the functionality cited, Internet of 

Things capabilities, is not reasonably 

necessary for core network operations 

and therefore is outside of the scope of 

the Catalog. The cost categories Ericsson 

requests to include in the Catalog are 

not part of the core network but rather 

are used by end users to connect to 

advanced communications services. In 

the 2021 Supply Chain Order, the 

Commission found that ‘‘Internet of 

Things devices, used by end users to 

access and utilize advanced 

communications services are distinctly 

different from the cell sites, backhaul, 

core network, etc. used to operate a 

network and provide advanced 

communications services,’’ and were 

‘‘not reasonably necessary to the 

removal, replacement, and disposal of 

covered communications equipment or 

service.’’ 

89. Vantage Point argues that ‘‘annual 

software or license fees’’ are ‘‘a true cost 

of network replacement and should be 

included in Catalog replacement 

estimates.’’ While these expenses may 

be reimbursable, the Bureau declines to 

implement Vantage Point’s proposed 

change because specific software 

licensing fees are already included in 

the Catalog based on Widelity’s 

engagement with industry stakeholders. 

Participants seeking reimbursement for 

software and licensing fees not 

identified in the Catalog will need to 

provide individualized cost estimates 

with supporting documentation. 

90. Requests to Clarify or Modify Cost 

Categories. CCA asks us to ‘‘clarify that 

the full range of 911 implementation 

costs are reasonable,’’ including ‘‘thirdparty integration costs.’’ The Catalog 

includes cost estimates for ‘‘911 and 

E911 Services and Test Services’’ which 

the Bureau finds are sufficiently 

specific. To the extent that there are 

additional costs associated with 911 and 

E911 (Enhanced 911) implementation as 

CCA suggests, there is no evidence in 

the record or provided to Widelity that 

would form a basis for altering the 

Catalog 911 and E911 services cost 

categories. Accordingly, the Bureau 

declines to implement the change 

proposed by CCA. 

91. USTelecom asked the Commission 

to clarify that the ‘‘Leasing’’ cost 

category is not limited to ‘‘wireless 

networks,’’ but that ‘‘wireline networks 

may also need to obtain or modify 

leases, such as, for example, for space in 

third-party datacenters.’’ In particular, 

USTelecom asserts that the ‘‘‘existing 

colocation’ expense type’’ is ‘‘unclear.’’ 

The Bureau clarifies that providers of 

wireline networks may be eligible for 

reimbursement of leasing expenses, 

including colocation expenses, 

reasonably incurred in removing, 

replacing, or disposing of covered 

communications equipment and 

services. The Bureau declines, however, 

to modify the Catalog to account for 

costs of leasing space in third-party data 

centers. The Bureau notes that there is 

no documentation in the record to 

quantify costs for leasing space in thirdparty data centers, and Widelity did not 

receive cost data on leasing space in 

third-party data centers. 

92. Amendments to the Range of Cost 

Estimates. Commenters requested that 

the Bureau modifies the range of cost 

estimates for certain cost categories 

identified in the preliminary Catalog. 

Mavenir argues that the low range of 

cost estimates identified in the 

preliminary Catalog for ‘‘ ‘Open vRAN 

eNodeB’, ‘RAN (Open RAN/vRAN) 

Components’ or [Distributed Unit] . . . 

need to be changed to reflect that costs 

provided by Mavenir.’’ The Bureau 

agrees with Mavenir that it should 

modify the Catalog to reduce the low 

end of the range of estimated costs for 

‘‘Open vRAN eNodeB,’’ and ‘‘RAN 

(Open RAN/vRAN Components)’’ to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48534 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

reflect the lower pricing information 

Mavenir submitted to Widelity. 

Accordingly, the Bureau implements 

these clarifications in the Catalog. 

However, the Bureau rejects Mavenir’s 

request to lower the low end of the 

range of cost estimates for the 

distribution layer Distributed Unit cost 

category because Widelity had already 

factored in the pricing information 

Mavenir submitted to Widelity when 

developing the range of cost estimates 

for the preliminary catalog. Because the 

Bureau finds the range of cost estimates 

for Distributed Unit identified in the 

preliminary catalog to be reasonable, the 

Bureau includes it in the final Catalog. 

93. USTelecom asked the Commission 

to ‘‘reexamine and confirm the 

appropriate prices’’ for WDM and OTN 

equipment. USTelecom asserted that it 

was ‘‘unclear why’’ cost estimates for 

access layer ‘‘Access WDM & OTN’’ 

equipment ‘‘matches’’ core layer ‘‘Metro 

WDM & OTN’’ equipment, ‘‘yet the 

apparently similar’’ distribution layer 

‘‘Metro WDM & OTN’’ cost estimates are 

‘‘very different.’’ To remove a potential 

source of confusion for participants, the 

Bureau removed the core layer ‘‘Metro 

WDM & OTN’’ cost category since this 

equipment is identical to distribution 

layer WDM and OTN equipment and 

thus the cost estimates were duplicative. 

As a result, the Bureau adjusted the 

range of cost estimates for ‘‘WDM & 

OTN—Core Equipment’’ to reflect the 

removal of distribution layer WDM and 

OTN equipment and the associated 

range of cost estimates. Accordingly, the 

Bureau adopts this revision in the 

Catalog. WDM and OTN associated 

equipment costs are included for the 

access layer, distribution layer, and core 

layer equipment cost categories. 

94. USTelecom states that a member 

has ‘‘Huawei equipment that would 

appear to be classified as Coaxial Media 

Converters in the proposed catalog’’ and 

reports that it ‘‘paid well in excess of 

the maximum allowed,’’ and ‘‘the cost 

to replace Huawei with equal 

functionality will range from $13,000– 

$16,000 per replacement.’’ USTelecom 

notes that the carrier ‘‘typically refers 

to’’ the ‘‘Coaxial Media Converters’’ 

equipment as a ‘‘cable modem 

termination system (CMTS) and, while 

CMTS systems are generally deployed 

in a cable operator’s headend, these 

particular Huawei CMTS devices are 

field-deployed.’’ Because the Bureau 

finds that the costs for replacing CMTS 

are reasonably necessary to comply with 

the Reimbursement Program, the Bureau 

finds that the Catalog should be revised 

to account for CMTS costs. The Bureau 

agrees with USTelecom that the highend cost estimate should be $16,000 per 

node but, based on cost estimates 

recommended by Widelity based on 

industry engagement, the Bureau finds 

that the low-end cost estimate should be 

$8,500 per node. The Bureau modifies 

the Catalog to include this range of cost 

estimates for CMTS (per node). 

95. CCA asks us to ‘‘add the costs of 

cell site routers to the Catalog, with an 

estimated cost of $3,000 per site’’ 

because ‘‘[e]ach cell site typically has a 

router installed.’’ The preliminary 

catalog identified a Distribution Layer 

cost subcategory and range of cost 

estimates for ‘‘Cell Site Routers.’’ The 

Bureau revised the Catalog to include 

additional Distribution Layer cost 

subcategories and ranges of cost 

estimates for small, medium, and large 

cell site routers based on Widelity’s 

additional engagement with industry 

stakeholders. The Bureau finds that 

Widelity’s thorough survey of 

communications industry 

manufacturers and service providers 

reasonably identified relevant ranges of 

estimated costs for cell site routers. To 

the extent that applicants disagree with 

the Catalog cost estimates, they may 

submit individualized cost estimates 

along with supporting documentation. 

96. The Bureau also takes this 

opportunity to clarify that costs 

associated with removing, replacing, 

and disposing of wired (Wi-Fi) and 

wireless routers that constitute CPE are 

not be reimbursable under the program 

and revise the Catalog accordingly. The 

preliminary catalog included a 

subcategory (without cost estimates) for 

‘‘Smart Home’’ CPE but clarified that 

‘‘IP cameras, wifi doorbells, wifi, light 

switches, etc. would not be 

reimbursable.’’ In the preliminary 

Report, Widelity noted that for wireless 

networks, CPE can include an ‘‘internal 

modem and broadband router possibly 

with a wireless access point to 

distribute a signal throughout the 

premises or office,’’ and for wired 

networks, CPE can include a 

‘‘broadband router, or a premise 

gateway with wireless (Wi-Fi) 

capabilities.’’ In the 2021 Supply Chain 

Order, the Commission found that 

certain CPE equipment including enduser handsets were ‘‘distinctly different 

from cell sites, backhaul, core network, 

etc. used to operate a network and 

provide advanced communications 

services.’’ In particular, the Commission 

found this equipment was not 

reasonably necessary to the removal, 

replacement and disposal of covered 

communications equipment. Wired (WiFi) and wireless routers may constitute 

CPE used by end users to access noncore network elements and, consistent 

with the 2021 Supply Chain Order, are 

not reasonably necessary for the 

removal, replacement, and disposal of 

covered communications equipment or 

services. Accordingly, the Bureau 

revises the Catalog ‘‘Smart Home’’ 

subcategory to clarify that ‘‘Wi-Fi 

Routers’’ would not be reimbursable 

under the program. 

97. Airspan argues that the ‘‘Cost 

Catalog’s pricing appears grossly 

inflated,’’ noting that ‘‘some of the lower 

bound cost estimates listed in the Cost 

Catalog are as much as three times (3x) 

the price Airspan currently offers for 

equivalent hardware and other network 

elements,’’ and that network equipment 

and services are becoming less 

expensive by the day due to the ongoing 

evolution of network architecture design 

and equipment manufacturing.’’ 

Airspan did not sufficiently quantify 

with specificity the changes to the range 

of cost estimates it envisioned. The 

Bureau thus declines to modify the 

Catalog in response to Airspan’s 

comment because it believes that 

Widelity’s thorough survey of 

communications industry 

manufacturers and service providers 

reasonably identified relevant ranges of 

estimated costs. The Bureau notes that 

it modified the Catalog in parts to 

reduce the low-end of the range of cost 

estimates where appropriate. 

98. Vantage Point argues that the 

preliminary Catalog underestimates 

shipping costs in Alaska, failing to 

account for ‘‘shipping costs to any other 

major Alaskan port,’’ other than Seattle 

to Dutch Harbor, and failing to account 

for ‘‘inland transportation costs.’’ The 

Bureau declines to modify the Catalog to 

account for additional shipping costs in 

Alaska raised by Vantage Point. The 

Catalog accounts for shipping costs to 

Alaska based on the longest shipping 

route, Seattle to Dutch Harbor, as an 

example for the costs typically incurred. 

Cost estimates for other outlying 

regions, which vary depending on 

multiple cost factors, including 

distance, time of year, freight weight, 

etc., would be too variable to include in 

the Catalog. To the extent that providers 

believe the Catalog does not adequately 

represent their shipping costs, they may 

submit individualized cost estimates 

with supporting documentation. 

99. Widelity Proposed Revisions. 

Widelity also proposed various 

modifications, clarifications, and 

improvements to the preliminary 

catalog, based on additional engagement 

with communications industry 

stakeholders and its own thorough 

review. Widelity proposed various 

clarifications to the descriptions of the 

cost categories. For example, Widelity 

proposed clarifying that the ‘‘Virtual/ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48535 

Cloud Core Deployment Cloud—Virtual 

IMS’’ cost category range of estimated 

costs is for equipment providing service 

to ‘‘up to 100,000 subscribers.’’ Widelity 

also proposed revising the description 

for ‘‘Antenna—LTE (Long Term 

Evolution)’’ to represent costs for a 

typical 10-port antenna, instead of an 8- 

port antenna, resulting in a decrease to 

the low-range of cost estimates from 

$2,087 to $1,479. Widelity also 

proposed adding additional cost 

subcategories to provide further 

specificity and guidance to applicants. 

For example, Widelity proposed adding 

a Distribution Layer Equipment cost 

category for ‘‘Hybrid Cable & Radio 

Jumpers, Tower Ancillary Components’’ 

with a range of cost estimates. Widelity 

also proposed changes to the range of 

cost estimates proposed in the 

preliminary catalog to more accurately 

reflect reasonable costs typically 

incurred managing a network. For 

example, Widelity proposed increasing 

the high-end of the range of cost 

estimates for ‘‘Tower/Installation 

Crews,’’ ‘‘Mobilization Less than or 

Equal to 250 Miles (2–4 Member 

Crew),’’ from $3,000 to $6,000. 

100. Because the Bureau finds that 

Widelity’s proposed modifications and 

clarifications improve the accuracy and 

quality of the Catalog and will aid 

participants preparing their initial cost 

estimates, it revises the Catalog to 

include additional changes identified by 

Widelity. A complete listing of the 

changes to the preliminary catalog that 

are reflected in the final Catalog are 

included as an attachment to the Catalog 

in Appendix C of the PN. 

101. Highly Variable Expenses. For 

certain expenses identified in the 

preliminary catalog—such as costs 

associated with network security 

equipment, network automation, and 

network integrator services—a range 

could not be quantified, most often due 

to the highly variable nature of the cost. 

Taxes, for example, vary by state and 

locality and/or tax exemption and 

therefore could not be quantified for the 

Catalog. The same holds true for special 

access site costs which vary by site and 

region. For these expenses, while the 

Bureau recognizes they are potentially 

reimbursable, applicants will not be 

able to rely on the Catalog as there is no 

quantified range. Accordingly, for such 

expenses, applicants will need to 

provide an individual cost estimate with 

supporting documentation. The Bureau 

has moved those expense descriptions 

to the back of the Catalog merely as an 

acknowledgement that it has considered 

such costs and recognize they are 

potentially eligible for reimbursement 

even though a cost estimate range could 

not be quantified. 

C. Final Replacement List 

102. The Bureau adopts a final List of 

Categories of Suggested Replacement 

Equipment and Services (Replacement 

List) to guide providers removing, 

replacing, and disposing of covered 

communications equipment and 

services. Section 4(d)(1) of the Secure 

Networks Act directs the Commission to 

‘‘develop a list of suggested 

replacements of both physical and 

virtual communications equipment, 

application and management software, 

and services or categories of 

replacements of both physical and 

virtual communications equipment, 

application and management software 

and services.’’ The list must be 

‘‘technology neutral and may not 

advantage the use of reimbursement 

funds for capital expenditures over 

operational expenditures.’’ Accordingly, 

in the 2020 Supply Chain Order, 

Commission mandated the development 

of a Replacement List ‘‘that will identify 

the categories of suggested replacements 

of real and virtual hardware and 

software equipment and services to 

guide providers removing covered 

communications equipment from their 

networks.’’ and directed the Bureau to 

issue a public notice announcing the 

Replacement List. The Bureau sought 

and received comment on a preliminary 

Replacement List prepared by Widelity 

in the Catalog PN. After considering the 

comments addressing the preliminary 

Replacement List received in response 

to the Catalog PN, the Bureau declines 

to make any changes to the preliminary 

Replacement List. 

103. Santel Communications 

Cooperative, Inc. (Santel) asked the 

Bureau to ‘‘add a statement in the 

Replacement List acknowledging that 

replacing covered equipment with other 

advanced communications services 

equipment, specifically including [fiberto the-premises (FTTP)] equipment, 

qualifies for reimbursement under the 

Supply Chain Reimbursement 

Program.’’ In the 2021 Supply Chain 

Order, however, the Commission 

explained that it generally views fiber 

link replacements, including FTTP, as a 

technology upgrade and not a 

reasonable, comparable replacement for 

covered communications equipment 

and services. Participants may upgrade 

communications equipment and 

services under the Reimbursement 

Program but, as the Commission 

explained, will ultimately bear the 

difference in cost between the 

comparable replacement and the 

upgrade. Because cost determinations 

are very case-by-case specific, and FTTP 

is generally considered an upgrade, not 

a reasonable, comparable replacement, 

the Bureau declines to adopt Santel’s 

proposed modification to the 

Replacement List. 

104. ADTRAN seeks to ‘‘incorporate a 

‘Buy American’ preference into the 

suggested Replacement Equipment.’’ 

However, when Congress created the 

Reimbursement Program it did not 

express a preference for providers to 

replace covered communications 

equipment and services with equipment 

and services provided by U.S. 

companies. Similarly, and by 

ADTRAN’s own admission, Congress 

did not include a ‘‘Buy American’’ 

preference for the Reimbursement 

Program in sections 901 or 906 of the 

Secure Networks Act. Furthermore, in 

the 2020 Supply Chain Order the 

Commission explained that the 

Replacement List should ‘‘provide 

carriers with the flexibility to select the 

equipment or services that fit their 

needs from categories of equipment and 

services.’’ Consistent with the 2020 

Supply Chain Order, the Bureau 

provides participants with the flexibility 

to select U.S. and non-U.S. equipment 

or services (excluding, of course, 

Huawei and ZTE equipment or services) 

that satisfy their obligations under the 

Reimbursement Program. Accordingly, 

the Bureau declines to adopt ADTRAN’s 

proposed modification to the 

Replacement List. 

105. Accordingly, for the reasons 

stated herein, the Bureau adopts the 

preliminary replacement list proposed 

in the Catalog PN, without changes, as 

the final Replacement List for use in the 

Reimbursement Program. Consistent 

with the 2020 Supply Chain Order, the 

Bureau will publish the final 

Replacement List on the Commission’s 

website and issue a public notice at 

least annually announcing any updates 

to the Replacement List, to the extent 

there are any updates, to ensure that the 

Replacement List remains current. The 

final Replacement List is attached as 

Appendix D of the PN. 

D. Widelity Report 

106. The Bureau also sought comment 

in the Catalog PN on the Supply Chain 

Reimbursement Program Study (Report) 

prepared by Widelity. The Report 

represents the views of Widelity, not the 

views of the Commission or the Bureau, 

and is not an official Commission 

document. While the Bureau 

appreciates comments received 

addressing and proposing changes to the 

Report, the Bureau did not intend for 

further revisions to the Report by 

Widelity and instead sought comment 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48536 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

only to help gauge the adequacy and 

sufficiency of the subjects covered in 

the Report as the Bureau works to 

implement the Reimbursement Program. 

Specifically, the Report was intended 

‘‘as an industry and technology 

overview and explains Widelity’s 

methodologies used to develop the 

initial version of the proposed Catalog 

and Replacement List.’’ Comments on 

the Report are relevant only to the 

extent they inform the finalization of the 

Catalog and Replacement List. The final 

Catalog will be used by participants to 

estimate initial costs, and the final 

Replacement List will serve as a 

suggested guide to participants 

replacing equipment and services. 

Accordingly, the Bureau finds it 

unnecessary to require further revisions 

to the Widelity Report. 

III. Procedural Matters 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

107. This document does not contain 

new or modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. 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 107–198. The Commission 

has submitted the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

2020 Supply Chain Order, including 

FCC Form 5460, to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Section 3507(d) of the 

PRA. OMB, the general public, and 

other Federal agencies will be invited to 

comment on those requirements. 

F. Congressional Review Act 

108. The Commission has determined, 

and the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, concurs, that these requirements 

are non-major under the Congressional 

Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Bureau 

will send a copy of this document to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

109. Legal Authority. The Bureau 

establishes procedures for the 

Reimbursement Program pursuant to the 

authority contained in section 4 of the 

Secure Networks Act, as amended, 47 

U.S.C. 1603, and § 1.50004(p) of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.50004(p). 

110. Treasury Offset. The U.S. 

Department of the Treasury (Treasury) 

has a number of collection tools, 

including the Treasury Offset Program 

(TOP), whereby it collects delinquent 

debts owed to Federal agencies and 

states by individuals and entities, by 

offsetting those debts against Federal 

monies owed to the debtors. As noted in 

the Reimbursement Process PN, TOP 

will apply to disbursements from the 

Reimbursement Program. 

Reimbursement Program participants 

owing past-due debt to a Federal agency 

or a state may have all or part of their 

disbursement payments offset by 

Treasury to satisfy such debt. Prior to 

referral of its debt to Treasury, an entity 

is notified of the debt owed, including 

repayment instructions. If the referred 

debt of a Reimbursement Program 

participant remains outstanding at the 

time of a disbursement payment from 

the Reimbursement Program to that 

participant, the participant will be 

notified by Treasury that some or all of 

its payment has been offset to satisfy an 

outstanding Federal or state debt. 

Program participants that owe past due 

Federal or state debts that have been 

referred to Treasury are encouraged to 

resolve such debts prior to submitting 

their Application Request for Funding 

Allocation. The Bureau lacks discretion 

to deviate from the requirements of the 

TOP. 

111. RWA recognizes the Commission 

lacks the authority to deviate from the 

TOP requirements but ‘‘encourages the 

Reimbursement Program Fund 

Administrator and the FCC to work 

through any debt collection issues with 

the applicant prior to funds being 

released so that an applicant can cure 

any outstanding debts in order to 

receive funding.’’ The Bureau will 

endeavor to work with participants, to 

the extent practicable, on Treasury 

Offset debt collection issues in 

connection with the disbursement 

process. Participants are, however, 

encouraged to proactively identify and 

resolve any outstanding Federal and 

state debt issues before participating in 

the Reimbursement Program that could 

lead to a Treasury Offset. 

112. Do Not Pay. Absent comment on 

the issue, the Commission adopts the 

proposal for the Bureau in coordination 

with the Commission’s Office of 

Managing Director to ‘‘conduct a 

thorough review of the federal ‘Do Not 

Pay’ system database to verify an 

applicant’s eligibility for payments and 

awards’’ before distributing the funding. 

Pursuant to the Payment Integrity 

Information Act of 2019 (PIIA), the 

Commission is required to ensure that a 

thorough review of available databases 

with relevant information on eligibility 

occurs to determine program or award 

eligibility and prevent improper 

payments before the release of any 

federal funds.’’ The Department of 

Treasury’s Do Not Pay system is 

designed to decrease improper 

payments in Federal programs such as 

the payment of funds to ineligible 

recipients, overpayment, or 

underpayment. 

113. Under the PIIA, the Commission 

is required to verify the eligibility of the 

funding recipient in multiple databases 

before allocating and distributing the 

funding. The Reimbursement Program 

Fund Administrator will initially check 

whether an applicant is identified in the 

Do Not Pay system. If an applicant is 

ineligible for funding under the Do Not 

Pay system, the Reimbursement 

Program Fund Administrator will notify 

the applicant and provide an 

opportunity for the applicant to 

expeditiously resolve the matter with 

the Do Not Pay system. The Bureau will 

not allocate funding to the applicant if 

an applicant is ineligible for funding 

under the Do Not Pay system. If a check 

of the Do Not Pay system results in a 

finding that a Reimbursement Program 

applicant is ineligible for funding or 

payment, the Commission will withhold 

funding and/or payments as 

appropriate. The Program Administrator 

may work with the applicant to give it 

an opportunity to resolve its listing in 

the Department of the Treasury’s Do Not 

Pay system if the applicant can produce 

evidence that its listing in the Do Not 

Pay system should be removed. 

However, the applicant or program 

participant will be responsible for 

working with the relevant agency to 

correct its information before funding 

can be allocated or payment can be 

made by the Commission.’’ 

114. Red Light Rule. In the 

Reimbursement Procedures PN, the 

Bureau sought comment on waiving the 

Commission’s ‘‘red light rule’’ for all 

funding allocations and disbursements 

from the Reimbursement Program. RWA 

supported this proposal. Accordingly, 

the Bureau will waive the ‘‘red light 

rule’’ for the Reimbursement Program as 

discussed in this document. 

115. The Commission’s ‘‘red light 

rule’’ prevents parties who are 

delinquent on debts owed to the 

Commission from receiving benefits 

from the Commission while the debts 

remain unpaid. The Commission 

adopted the ‘‘red light rule’’ in 

implementation of the Federal Debt 

Collection Improvement Act of 1996 

that sought to ‘‘maximize collections of 

delinquent debts owed to the 

Government . . .’’ The Commission has 

the authority to waive the ‘‘red light 

rule’’ for ‘‘good cause shown’’ under the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission 

can waive compliance with its own 

regulations when ‘‘particular facts 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48537 

would make strict compliance [with the 

regulation] inconsistent with the public 

interest.’’ The Bureau finds that the 

waiver of the ‘‘red light rule’’ is justified 

in this instance given the national 

security risks posed to U.S. networks by 

Huawei and ZTE covered 

communications equipment and 

services. 

116. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980, as amended (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.’’ The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concerns’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘small 

business concern’’ is one that: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

117. The Commission prepared Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFAs) 

in connection with the 2020 Supply 

Chain Declaratory Ruling, 85 FR 47211, 

August 4, 2020, 2020 Supply Chain 

Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (FNPRM), 85 FR 48134, 

August 10, 2020, and the 2021 Supply 

Chain Third FNPRM, 86 FR 15165, 

March 22, 2021. The Commission 

sought written public comment on the 

proposals in the 2020 Supply Chain 

Declaratory Ruling, 2020 Supply Chain 

Second FNPRM, and the 2021 Supply 

Chain Third FNPRM, including 

comments on the IRFAs. No comments 

were filed addressing the IRFAs. The 

Commission included Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analyses (FRFAs) in 

connection with the 2020 Supply Chain 

Order and the 2021 Supply Chain 

Order. 

118. This document establishes 

procedures for the Reimbursement 

Program to implement the rules adopted 

by the Commission for the 

Reimbursement Program in the 2020 

Supply Chain Order and in the 2021 

Supply Chain Order. In particular, this 

document establishes procedures for, 

among other things, determining 

program eligibility and participating in 

the program, including the filing and 

processing of applications. The 

procedures established in this document 

flow from the proposals set forth in the 

2020 Supply Chain Declaratory Ruling, 

2020 Supply Chain Second FNPRM, and 

the 2021 Supply Chain Third FNPRM 

and discussed in the IRFAs 

accompanying those Notices, and are 

consistent with the requirements 

established in the 2020 Supply Chain 

Order and the 2021 Supply Chain Order 

and addressed in the FRFAs 

accompanying those Orders. 

Accordingly, no changes to our earlier 

analyses are required. 

119. The Bureau has determined that 

the impact on the entities affected by 

the requirements contained in this 

document will not be significant. The 

effect of these measures is to establish 

for the benefit of those entities, 

including small entities, the procedures 

for filing an application consistent with 

existing rules, to participate in the 

Reimbursement Program to obtain 

funding support to remove from their 

networks, replace, and dispose of 

communications equipment and service 

considered a national security risk. 

120. The Bureau therefore certifies 

that the requirements of this document 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The Bureau will send a copy of 

the document including a copy of this 

Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification, in a report to Congress 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act. In addition, the document and this 

final certification will be sent to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, 

and will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Cheryl Callahan, 

Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Access 

Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18446 Filed 8–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 21–60; RM–11844; DA 21– 

1038; FR ID 45283] 

Television Broadcasting Services 

Superior and York, Nebraska 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On March 10, 2021, the Media 

Bureau, Video Division (Bureau) issued 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) in response to an amended 

rulemaking petition filed by Gray 

Television Licensee, LLC (Gray), the 

licensee of KSNB–TV, channel 4 (NBC/ 

MyNetwork), Superior, Nebraska. Gray 

requested that the Commission delete 

channel 4 from Superior and allot it to 

York, Nebraska in the DTV Table of 

Allotments and substitute channel 24 

for channel 4 at York in the Table 

consistent with the technical parameters 

set forth in its Amended Petition. For 

the reasons set forth in the Report and 

Order referenced below, the Bureau 

amends FCC regulations to delete 

channel 4 from Superior and allot it to 

York, and then substitute channel 24 for 

channel 4 at York consistent with the 

technical parameters set forth in its 

amended petition. 

DATES: Effective August 31, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–1647 or Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed rule was published at 86 FR 

15180 on May 21, 2021. Because Gray’s 

proposal that the Bureau allot channel 

24 to York is not mutually exclusive 

with its existing channel 4 allotment at 

Superior and would result in removal of 

Superior’s sole local transmission 

outlet, the NPRM sought comment on 

whether to waive section 1.420(i) of the 

Commission’s rules regarding mutual 

exclusivity, and the Commission’s 

allotment policy disfavoring the 

removal of a community’s sole first local 

service. Gray filed comments in support 

of the petition reaffirming its 

commitment to apply for channel 24 

and filed amended comments at the 

Bureau’s request to more fully address 

the waiver issues. In addition to KSNB– 

TV, Gray is the licensee of KOLN, 

Lincoln, Nebraska. KOLN’s tower 

collapsed in 2020 and according to 

Gray, given the imminent failure of 

KSNB–TV’s existing technical facility, 

rebuilding KSNB–TV on channel 24 at 

the new KOLN tower would resolve 

VHF-related reception issues in certain 

areas of KSNB–TV’s current predicted 

service area, and save several hundred 

thousand dollars in construction costs. 

With respect to the mutual exclusivity 

requirement, the Commission adopted 

section 1.420 to allow a television 

station to request a new community of 

license without subjecting the station to 

the risk of losing its license to 

competing applications if the change in 

community of license was mutually 

exclusive with the station’s current 

allotment, so that the change would not 

deprive potential future applicants of 

the opportunity to apply for a new 

station to serve the area. Gray 

demonstrated that multiple channels are 

currently available for future allotment 

in the Superior/York/Lincoln, Nebraska 

area and, thus, because the underlying 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES