[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 230-250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27610]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket No. 18-89, PS Docket Nos. 19-351, 19-352; FCC 19-121; FRS 
16315]


Protecting Against National Security Threats to the 
Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs; Huawei Designation; 
ZTE Designation

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) adopts a rule that prospectively prohibits the use of 
Universal Service Fund (USF or the Fund) funds to purchase or obtain 
any equipment or services produced or provided by a covered company 
posing a national security threat to the integrity of communications 
networks or the communications supply chain. In doing so, the Report 
and Order initially designates Huawei Technologies Company (Huawei) and 
ZTE Corporation (ZTE) as covered companies for purposes of the rule and 
establish a process for designating additional covered companies in the 
future. To support the Commission's future efforts to protect the 
communications supply chain, the Information Collection Order (Order) 
directs the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and Office of Economics 
and Analytics (OEA), in coordination with USAC, to conduct an 
information collection to determine the extent to which potentially 
prohibited equipment exists in current networks and the costs 
associated with removing such equipment and replacing it with 
equivalent equipment.

DATES: Effective January 3, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact John Visclosky, Competition Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order and Order in WC Docket No. 18-89 and PS Docket Nos. 19-351 
and 19-352, adopted November 22, 2019 and released November 26, 2019. 
The full text of this document is available for public inspection 
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 or 
at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-121A1.pdf . The Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking that was adopted concurrently with this Report and Order and 
Order is published elsewhere in the Federal Register.
    Comments on the initial designations of Huawei and ZTE as covered 
companies are due on or before February 3, 2020.
    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before the 
dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be 
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). 
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 
24121 (1998). Interested parties may file comments, identified by PS 
Docket No. 19-351 for the Huawei final designation proceeding or PS 
Docket No. 19-352 for the ZTE final designation proceeding, by any of 
the following methods:
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise 
summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments 
and reply comments must also comply with section 1.49 and all other 
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. The Commission directs 
all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the 
date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. 
All parties are encouraged to use a table of contents, regardless of 
the length of their submission.

I. Introduction

    1. In today's increasingly connected world, safeguarding the 
security and integrity of America's communications infrastructure has 
never been more important. Broadband networks have transformed 
virtually every aspect of the U.S. economy, enabling the voice, data, 
and internet connectivity that fuels all other critical industry 
sectors--including our transportation systems, electrical grid, 
financial markets, and emergency services. And with the advent of 5G--
the next generation of wireless technologies, which is expected to 
deliver exponential increases in speed, responsiveness, and capacity--
the crucial and transformative role of communications networks in our 
economy and society will only increase. It is therefore vital that the 
Commission protects these networks from national security threats.
    2. The Commission has taken a number of targeted steps to protect 
the nation's communications networks from potential security threats. 
In this document, the Commission builds on these efforts, consistent 
with concurrent Congressional and Executive Branch actions, and ensure 
that the public funds used in the Commission's USF funds are not used 
in a way that undermines or poses a threat to our national security. 
Specifically, in the Report and Order, the Commission adopts a rule 
that prospectively prohibits the use of USF funds to purchase or obtain 
any equipment or services produced or provided by a

[[Page 231]]

covered company posing a national security threat to the integrity of 
communications networks or the communications supply chain. In doing 
so, the Commission initially designates Huawei and ZTE as covered 
companies for purposes of this rule and establish a process for 
designating additional covered companies in the future.
    3. Given the Commission's oversight of the USF programs that fund 
voice and broadband networks and services and the Commission's 
obligation to be responsible stewards of the public funds that 
subsidize those programs, the Commission has a specific, but important, 
role to play in securing the communications supply chain. The 
Commission believes that the steps the Commission takes in the document 
are consistent with this role, that the Commission must do all it can 
within the confines of its legal authority to address national security 
threats, and that its actions, along with those taken by other 
Executive Branch agencies, will go far in securing our nation's 
critical telecommunications infrastructure.

II. Report and Order

    4. Based on the Commission's review of the extensive record in the 
proceeding, it adopts a rule that no universal service support may be 
used to purchase or obtain any equipment or services produced or 
provided by a covered company posing a national security threat to the 
integrity of communications networks or the communications supply 
chain. Accordingly, USF recipients may not use USF funds to maintain, 
improve, modify, operate, manage, or otherwise support such equipment 
or services in any way, including upgrades to existing equipment and 
services. This prohibition applies to any subsidiaries and affiliates 
of USF recipients to the extent that such subsidiaries and affiliates 
use USF funds.
    5. In addition to adopting the rule, the Commission initially 
designates Huawei and ZTE as covered companies for the purposes of this 
prohibition. Both companies' ties to the Chinese government and 
military apparatus--together with Chinese laws obligating them to 
cooperate with any request by the Chinese government to use or access 
their systems--pose a threat to the security of communications networks 
and the communications supply chain and necessitate taking this step. 
The Commission's actions in this document are informed by the evidence 
cited herein, including the actions of other agencies and branches of 
the government and similar assessments from other countries.
    6. As the Commission stated in the Protecting Against National 
Security Threats Notice, the promotion of national security is 
consistent with the public interest, and USF funds should be used to 
deploy infrastructure and provide services that do not undermine our 
national security. The Commission has long accorded significant weight 
to the views of Executive Branch agencies on matters of national 
security, foreign policy, law enforcement, and trade policy, and the 
Commission finds it very significant that the U.S. Department of 
Justice (DoJ) has expressed its strong support for this conclusion. The 
Commission also agrees with the Telecommunications Industry Association 
(TIA) that the Commission ``may reasonably conclude that limiting the 
use of technology from certain vendors deemed to pose a heightened 
national security risk is an appropriate element of providing a quality 
communications service.'' The record persuades the Commission that the 
nature of today's communications networks is such that untrusted 
participants in the supply chain pose a serious risk to the integrity 
and, thus, the quality of those networks.
    7. It is well established that the Commission has authority to 
place reasonable public-interest conditions on the use of USF funds. In 
the 2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011, 
the Commission determined that supported services must be provided 
using broadband-capable networks and that ETCs must offer broadband 
services that meet certain basic performance requirements. As the Tenth 
Circuit held in upholding the Commission's imposition of these 
obligations, section 254(c)(1) does not limit the Commission's 
authority to place conditions on the use of USF funds, and section 
254(e) is reasonably interpreted as allowing the Commission ``to 
specify what a USF recipient may or must do with the funds,'' 
consistent with the policy principles outlined in section 254(b). The 
Commission adopts the rule as just such a restriction, based on its 
conclusion that it is critical to the provision of ``quality service'' 
that USF funds be spent on secure networks and not be spent on 
equipment and services from companies that threaten national security. 
Or, to put it another way, providing a secure service is part of 
providing a quality service.
    8. The Commission disagrees with commenters who suggest that 
adopting the rule violates the principle that ``[q]uality services 
should be available at just, reasonable, and affordable rates.'' As TIA 
points out, many companies have been able to provide quality services 
at reasonable and affordable rates using suppliers whose quality, and 
risk to our national security, is not being questioned here. 
Furthermore, the Commission is not persuaded by arguments that the 
proposed rule would violate this principle by eliminating low-cost 
suppliers. Again, the record clearly demonstrates that service can be 
provided at just, reasonable, and affordable rates without these 
suppliers. Additionally, there is evidence that those low costs are 
likely due to favorable subsidies and other benefits bestowed by 
governments that are in an adversarial position to the United States. 
To the extent that certain vendors are able to offer lower prices for 
their equipment or services due to subsidization from foreign 
governments that pose a national security threat, restricting federal 
funding to those vendors should unleash competition from more-trusted, 
higher-quality suppliers in the long run, resulting in significant 
public interest benefits. Furthermore, the Commission would be shirking 
its responsibility to the American public if it were to ignore threats 
to our security posed by certain equipment manufacturers simply because 
that equipment was cheaper.
    9. Moreover, the Commission must ensure that universal service 
funds are being spent in a manner consistent with section 254 of the 
Act. Section 254(e) requires that USF recipients ``shall use that 
support only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of 
facilities and services for which the support is intended.'' This 
language authorizes the Commission to designate the services for which 
USF support will be provided and to ``encourage the deployment of the 
types of facilities that will best achieve the principles set forth in 
section 254(b).'' The Commission also must define the services 
supported by USF, which the statute explains is to be ``an evolving 
level of telecommunications services that the Commission shall 
establish periodically under this section.'' In so doing, the 
Commission ``shall consider . . . the extent to which such 
telecommunications services . . . are consistent with the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity.'' Again, the Commission concludes 
that the public interest requires that the USF support only services 
that are not dependent on equipment and services provided or produced 
by any company that poses a national security threat. The Commission's 
decision here to limit the services that will be supported by USF is 
especially consistent with public safety, under section 254(c)(1)(A), 
and

[[Page 232]]

with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, under section 
254(c)(1)(D).
    10. To the extent parties contend that the Commission may not 
change what it establishes as the ``evolving level of 
telecommunications services'' to be supported by USF without first 
seeking the recommendation of the Joint Board, the Commission 
disagrees. Section 254(c)(1) requires the Commission to establish the 
definition of universal service; it allows the Joint Board to issue a 
recommendation but does not require Commission action to be preceded by 
such a recommendation. The Commission has acted under this provision 
several times without following a recommendation of the Joint Board--
for example in the 2014 First E-Rate Order, 80 FR 167, January 5, 2015, 
and the 2016 Lifeline Order, 81 FR 33026, May 24, 2016.
    11. The Commission also rejects arguments that it may not consider 
national security in assessing the public interest generally or under 
section 254. Indeed, the security of our nation is an important part of 
the public interest. That's why the Commission has consistently held, 
including in the Protecting Against National Security Threats Notice in 
the proceeding, that national security concerns are part of the public 
interest and that the Commission's exercise of specific statutory 
authorities should, when warranted, take those concerns into account. 
As discussed in the Protecting Against National Security Threats 
Notice, the Commission adopted rules implementing the 2012 Spectrum Act 
to prohibit participation in spectrum auctions by entities that have 
been barred by any federal agency from bidding on a contract, 
participating in an auction, or receiving a grant. The Commission also 
has a long history of considering national security equities where 
other agencies have specific expertise and are positioned to make 
recommendations, and adopting a similar process here cannot be 
characterized as ``promot[ing] other, unrelated objectives'' unrelated 
to the specific regulatory program at hand.
    12. More generally, section 201(b) of the Act authorizes the 
Commission to promulgate ``such rules and regulations as may be 
necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this 
Act.'' It is well-established that the promotion of national security 
is consistent with the public interest and part of the purpose for 
which the Commission was created. As section 1 of the Act states, the 
Commission was created ``for the purpose of the national defense [and] 
for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the 
use of wire and radio communication . . . .'' The Commission concludes 
based on the record of the proceeding that it is necessary in the 
public interest to prohibit USF recipients from spending universal 
service funds on covered equipment or services.
    13. The action the Commission takes in this document also 
implements section 105 of the Communications Assistance for Law 
Enforcement Act (CALEA). That section requires every telecommunications 
carrier to ensure that any interception of communications or access to 
call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can 
be activated only pursuant to a lawful authorization and with the 
affirmative intervention of an officer or employee of the carrier. The 
Commission has concluded that all facilities-based providers of 
broadband internet access services and all providers of interconnected 
VoIP services are telecommunications carriers under CALEA. The 
Commission has interpreted ``switching premises'' consistent with the 
purpose of CALEA as including ``routers, soft switches, and other 
equipment that may provide addressing and intelligence functions for 
packet-based communications to manage and direct the communications 
along to their intended destinations.'' One of the dangers of allowing 
equipment from untrusted suppliers to be part of a network is the 
possibility that those suppliers will maintain the ability to illegally 
activate interceptions or other forms of surveillance within the 
carrier's switching premises without its knowledge, whether through the 
insertion of malicious hardware or software implants, remote network 
access maintained by providers of managed services, or otherwise. 
Telecommunications carriers, including all ETCs, therefore appear to 
have a duty to avoid such risks.
    14. The Commission disagrees with Huawei that its recognition of 
this duty is barred by section 103(b)(1) of CALEA, 47 U.S.C. 
1002(b)(1). The rule the Commission adopts in this document addresses 
only the use of USF funds and does not prohibit the ``adoption of any 
equipment.'' Furthermore, the Commission is not a ``law enforcement 
agency'' within the meaning of section 103(b)(1); in the context of 
CALEA, that term refers to agencies that conduct interceptions and 
access to call-identifying information.
    15. The Commission is authorized to ``prescribe such rules as are 
necessary to implement the requirements of'' CALEA and specifically to 
require carriers to establish policies and procedures to prevent 
unauthorized surveillance. Though the rule the Commission adopts in 
this document applies only to ETCs' use of USF funds, it disagrees with 
Huawei's argument that the link between this obligation and the 
prohibition the Commission adopts here is ``remote.'' The rule the 
Commission adopts in this document directly implements section 105 of 
CALEA by reducing the likelihood that ETCs use USF funds to facilitate 
unauthorized surveillance. Nor does the rule require, as Huawei 
suggests, that the Commission interprets section 105 ``as prohibiting 
carriers from using any equipment that has any possibility, no matter 
how remote, of being subject to unauthorized access for purposes of 
intercepting communications.'' But use of equipment or services from 
companies that pose national security threats is far more likely to be 
subject to such unauthorized access, and the Commission chooses here 
not to allow USF funds to support such use.
    16. The Commission further disagrees with Huawei's contention that 
CALEA's security provision does not apply to attempts by actors other 
than U.S. law enforcement to intercept or access communications. The 
plain language of section 105 specifies not only the activation of the 
assistance capabilities required by section 103 but any interception or 
access effected within a carrier's switching premises. This 
understanding of the plain language is consistent with its legislative 
history. The bills reported by the House and Senate Judiciary 
Committees used different language limiting the security obligation 
only to ``any court ordered or lawfully authorized interception of 
communications or access to call-identifying information within its 
switching premises,'' but that language was revised in consultation 
with the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the version of the bill 
ultimately considered and adopted on the floor of both Houses. The 
Commission considers the change to be purposeful and to reflect 
Congress's understanding of CALEA as enacting protections against 
unauthorized surveillance, not only as ensuring the ability of law 
enforcement to conduct authorized surveillance.
    17. Congress has also determined, in section 889 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 NDAA), that the 
expenditure of loan or grant funds by federal agencies to procure or 
obtain covered telecommunications equipment or services is contrary to 
the security interests of the United States. Although

[[Page 233]]

the USF is neither a loan program nor a grant program, it is a 
significant source of funds administered by the Commission and intended 
for the purchase of equipment, services, or systems with which section 
889 is concerned. The Commission finds that the goals underlying 
section 889 of the 2019 NDAA also support its decision to take action 
here. Following enactment of the 2019 NDAA, the WCB sought comment on 
the relevance of section 889(b)(1) to the proceeding. The record now 
persuades the Commission that adoption of a rule that prohibits 
universal service funds from being used to obtain equipment or services 
produced or provided by companies that pose a threat to national 
security, and the Commission's initial designation of Huawei and ZTE as 
such companies, is consistent with section 889 of the 2019 NDAA. The 
Commission agrees with TIA that section 889 ``codifies a determination 
by Congress regarding five specific suppliers of concern,'' including 
Huawei and ZTE, and expresses a view that ``the role of the Commission 
and other executive agencies is to prevent the use of federal funds 
under their control on equipment and services from [those] suppliers of 
concern.''
    18. The Commission establishes a process for designating entities 
as national security threats for purposes of its rule. The Commission 
first defines ``covered company'' to include subsidiaries, parents and 
affiliates of covered companies for purposes of the rule it adopts in 
this document. In the Protecting Against National Security Threats 
Notice, the Commission sought comment on whether a covered company's 
subsidiaries, parents, and/or affiliates should be treated as a covered 
company as well and sought comment on how to define such entities. 
Because equipment from subsidiaries, parents, and affiliates pose the 
same risks to network integrity as equipment directly from the covered 
company, the Commission includes any subsidiary, parent, or affiliate 
of a covered company as a covered company subject to its prohibition.
    19. When the Commission initially determines, either sua sponte or 
in response to a petition from an outside party, that a company poses a 
national security threat to the integrity of communications networks or 
the communications supply chain, the Commission will issue a public 
notice advising that such initial designation has been made, as well as 
the basis for such designation. This public notice shall serve as an 
``initial designation'' of a covered company. Upon the issuance of such 
notice, interested parties may file comments responding to the initial 
designation, including proffering an opposition to the initial 
designation. If the initial designation is unopposed, the entity shall 
be deemed to pose a national security threat 31 days after the issuance 
of the notice. If any party opposes the initial designation, the 
designation shall take effect only if the Commission determines that 
the affected entity should nevertheless be designated as a covered 
company under the Commission's rule. In either case, the Commission 
shall issue a second public notice announcing its final designation and 
the effective date of that final designation. This public notice shall 
serve as the ``final designation'' of a covered company. In order to 
provide regulatory certainty to entities affected by initial 
designations, the Commission shall make a final designation effective 
no later than 120 days after release of its initial designation notice. 
The Commission may, however, extend such 120-day deadline for good 
cause.
    20. In formulating its initial and final designations, the 
Commission will use all available evidence to determine whether an 
entity poses a national security threat. Examples of such evidence may 
include, but are not limited to: determinations by the Commission, 
Congress or the President that an entity poses a national security 
threat; determinations by other executive agencies that an entity poses 
a national security threat; and, any other available evidence, whether 
open source or classified, that an entity poses a national security 
threat. Where appropriate, the Commission will seek to harmonize its 
determinations with the determinations of other federal agencies in the 
Executive branch and determinations of the Legislative branch. The 
Commission will base its determination on the totality of evidence 
surrounding the affected entity and should consider any evidence 
provided by the affected entity, or any other interested party, in 
making its final determination. However, classified information will 
not be made public, nor will it be made available to the designated 
company.
    21. Reversal of Designation. The Commission will act to reverse its 
designation upon a finding that a covered company no longer poses a 
national security threat to the integrity of communications networks or 
the communications supply chain. A covered company, or any other 
interested party, may submit a petition asking the Commission to remove 
a designation based on a showing of changed circumstances. The 
Commission shall seek the input of Executive Branch agencies and the 
public upon receipt of such a petition. If the record shows that a 
covered company is no longer a national security threat, the Commission 
shall promptly issue an order reversing its designation of that 
company. The Commission may dismiss repetitive or frivolous petitions 
for reversal of a designation without notice and comment--and may 
dismiss petitions that make no showing of changed circumstances or 
attempt to evade the limits the Commission's rules place on petitions 
for reconsideration or applications for review. If the Commission 
reverses its designation, it shall issue an order announcing its 
decision along with the basis for its decision.
    22. In the Protecting Against National Security Threats Notice, the 
Commission highlighted the longstanding concerns about the threats 
posed by Huawei and ZTE, including by other Executive Branch agencies 
and Congress. Both companies, as well as their subsidiaries and 
affiliates, are restricted from selling certain equipment and services 
to federal agencies due to Congressional and Executive Branch concern 
about the threat their equipment and services pose to the 
communications supply chain. Huawei vigorously responded to these 
allegations in the record of the proceeding, and ZTE did not make any 
filings in the proceeding. The Commission's examination of the record 
re-affirms the concerns raised by them in the Protecting Against 
National Security Threats Notice, and the Commission therefore takes 
the step of initially designating Huawei and ZTE as covered companies 
for purposes of the prohibition the Commission adopts in this document.
    23. The Commission concludes that publicly available information in 
the record is sufficient to support these designations. In addition, 
the Commission has compiled and reviewed additional classified national 
security information that provides further support for its 
determinations.
    24. The Commission agrees with commenters who argue that ``state 
actors, most notably China and Russia, have supported extensive and 
damaging cyberespionage efforts in the United States,'' and there 
exists a ``substantial body of evidence'' about the risks of certain 
equipment providers like Huawei and ZTE. International experts have 
found that China has a ``notorious reputation for persistent industrial 
espionage, and in particular for the close collaboration between 
government and Chinese industry.'' Allies of the

[[Page 234]]

United States have discovered numerous instances where the Chinese 
government has engaged in malicious acts, including ``actors likely 
associated with the . . . Ministry of State Security . . . responsible 
for the compromise of several Managed Service Providers.'' And as noted 
in the 2012 HPSCI Report, Huawei and ZTE are the ``two largest Chinese-
founded, Chinese-owned telecommunications companies seeking to market 
critical network equipment to the United States.''
    25. These two companies pose a great security risk because Chinese 
intelligence agencies have opportunities to tamper with their products 
in both the design and manufacturing processes. The 2012 HPSCI Report 
observed that the risks posed by companies such as Huawei are further 
exacerbated because the company offers services managing 
telecommunications equipment and its ``authorized access'' could be 
exploited ``for malicious activity under the guise of legitimate 
assistance.'' This legislative concern has continued, with Congress 
passing, and the President signing into law, significant restrictions 
on the purchase of equipment and services from Huawei and ZTE. And, in 
the proceeding, the Attorney General has agreed that ``a company's ties 
to a foreign government and willingness to take direction from it bear 
on its reliability'' for building or servicing telecommunications 
networks with the support of federal funds. As explained in the 
following, the Commission believes that Huawei and ZTE pose a unique 
threat to the security of communications networks and the 
communications supply chain because of their size, their close ties to 
the Chinese government both as a function of Chinese law and as a 
matter of fact, the security flaws in their equipment, and the unique 
end-to-end nature of Huawei's service agreements that allow it key 
access to exploit for malicious purposes. As a consequence, the 
Commission's primary focus is on Huawei and ZTE.
    26. The Commission notes, at the outset, that the Chinese 
government is highly centralized and exercises strong control over 
commercial entities, permitting the government, including state 
intelligence agencies, to demand that private communications sector 
entities cooperate with any governmental requests, which could involve 
revealing customer information, including network traffic information. 
The Department of Justice says that the Chinese government ``has 
subsidized [its] firms to lock up as much of the market as possible,'' 
which ``threatens to thwart the emergence of fair competition and lead 
to irreversible market dominance that will force all of us onto Chinese 
systems, causing unmitigable harm to our national security.'' According 
to Article 7 of the Chinese National Intelligence Law (NIL), all 
``organizations and citizens shall, according to the law, provide 
support and assistance to and cooperate with the State intelligence 
work, and keep secret the State intelligence work that they know.'' 
Article 14 permits Chinese intelligence institutions to request that 
Chinese citizens and organizations provide necessary support, 
assistance, and cooperation. Article 17 allows Chinese intelligence 
agencies to take control of an organization's facilities, including 
communications equipment. The Chinese NIL is extremely broad, applying 
to Chinese citizens residing outside of China. Article 11 specifies 
that the law's powers are not limited to Chinese soil, which would 
permit Chinese government elements to compel Huawei and ZTE to carry 
out their directives within the United States' national boundaries. 
Further, Article 28 of the NIL allows personnel to be punished for 
violating the Chinese NIL. This broad authority to compel support and 
assistance to Chinese intelligence agencies is particularly 
troublesome, given the Chinese government's involvement in computer 
intrusions and attacks as well as economic espionage. As a consequence, 
the Commission's primary focus in the Report and Order is on Huawei and 
ZTE.
    27. The Commission initially designates Huawei, along with its 
parents, affiliates, and subsidiaries, as a covered company for 
purposes of the Commission's rule.
    28. The Commission finds that Huawei's ties to the Chinese 
government and military apparatus, along with Chinese laws obligating 
them to cooperate with any request by the Chinese government to use or 
access their system, pose a threat to the security of communications 
networks and the communications supply chain. Congress and the 
Executive Branch have repeatedly expressed concerns regarding Huawei, 
its ties to the Chinese government, and its equipment. In addition to 
reports recommending that government agencies, federal contractors, and 
private-sector entities consider excluding Huawei and ZTE equipment 
from their networks due to long-term security risks and the companies' 
close ties to the Chinese government, Congress has also taken action to 
limit the purchase of certain Huawei and ZTE equipment and services for 
federally funded networks. Additionally, the Department of Commerce has 
added Huawei to its Entity List, which ``identifies entities for which 
there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable 
facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of 
being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national 
security or foreign policy interests of the United States.'' These 
concerns center around Huawei's established relationship with the 
Chinese government as well as Huawei's obligation under Chinese law to 
cooperate with requests by the Chinese government for access to their 
system.
    29. Although Huawei argues that its affiliates in the United States 
are not subject to state security laws, the Commission is not persuaded 
to excuse these affiliates from the scope of the Commission's 
prohibition. One expert has noted that the nature of the Chinese system 
``recognizes no limits to government power.'' Irrespective of their 
physical location, these affiliates still remain subject to Chinese 
law.
    30. As the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence found, 
``the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party . . . can 
exert influence over the corporate boards and management of private 
sector companies, either formally through personnel choices, or in more 
subtle ways.'' For example, Huawei's founder, Ren Zhengfei, is himself 
believed to be a former director of the People's Liberation Army 
Information Engineering Academy, an organization associated with 
China's signals intelligence. Ren Zhengfei exercises ``ultimate veto 
authority over the company's material decisions.'' Additionally, the 
Chinese government maintains an internal Communist Party Committee 
within Huawei that can exert additional influence on the company's 
operations and decisions. The House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence also received internal Huawei documentation from former 
Huawei employees ``showing that Huawei provides special network 
services to an entity the employee believes to be an elite cyber-
warfare unit within the PLA.''
    31. Moreover, analysts have found that while ``Huawei claims the 
Chinese state has no influence over its activities, . . . the company 
is treated as a state-owned enterprise and has benefited from state 
procurement funds, subsidized financing from state-owned policy banks 
and state funding for research.'' Huawei is reported to benefit from 
vast subsidies from the Chinese government, to include state-controlled

[[Page 235]]

financial organizations. One study ``identified 32 cases since 2012 
where Huawei projects were funded by Exim Bank of China ($2.8 billion) 
or China Development Bank ($7 billion).'' In 1998, it was reported that 
China Construction Bank provided over $470 million in lines of credit 
to foreign companies as incentive to purchase Huawei products. This 
initiative accounted for over 45% of the bank's annual extension of 
credit. While Huawei has refused to answer questions about its 
ownership and governance, it can be inferred that the Chinese 
government clearly has a vested interest in the company's success.
    32. The Commission's actions in this document are also informed by 
the actions of other agencies and branches of the government, along 
with the increasing caution urged by our nation's intelligence 
officials. For example, in February 2018, the leaders of all six top 
U.S. intelligence agencies warned against purchasing products or 
services from Huawei or ZTE with FBI Director Chris Wray saying, ``the 
Commission is deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any company 
or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don't share the 
Commission's values to gain positions of power inside our 
telecommunications networks that provides the capacity to exert 
pressure or control over the Commission's telecommunications 
infrastructure.'' The Department of Justice (DoJ) has also stated its 
``strong[] support'' for the Commission's action in this document, 
noting that it is pursuing numerous criminal charges against Huawei for 
violations of federal law and ``a willingness to break U.S. law 
combined with a determination to avoid the consequences by obstructing 
justice argues against the reliability of the provider.''
    33. In initially designating Huawei as a covered company, the 
Commission also relies on similar assessments by other countries. For 
example, on October 9, 2019, the European Union, with the support of 
the European Commission and the European Union Agency for 
Cybersecurity, released its risk assessment on 5G Security, 
specifically finding a high security risk where hostile countries 
exercise pressure on suppliers to facilitate cyberattacks serving their 
national interests. Many of our allies, including Australia, New 
Zealand, and Japan, have taken steps to exclude Huawei equipment from 
their networks. While Huawei argues that its equipment is used in other 
countries without undermining any nation's security, several of the 
United States' closest allies have concluded that the risk posed by 
Huawei equipment and systems is too great to bear. In November 2018, 
New Zealand's intelligence agency barred its largest telecommunications 
carrier, Sparc, from using Huawei equipment. Likewise, in December 
2018, Japan excluded Huawei from its domestic communications 
infrastructure. Additionally, in August 2019, the Australian government 
announced a ban on Huawei equipment. The Commission also notes that 
communications service providers in other countries, including BT, 
Orange, and Deutsche Telekom, are acting to keep Huawei equipment out 
of their 5G networks.
    34. Moreover, the Commission is confident that the national 
security risk to our communications network from permitting Huawei 
equipment and services is significant. For example, in 2019, Finite 
State, a cybersecurity firm, issued a report describing the unique 
threat posed by Huawei's ``high number'' of security vulnerabilities. 
The report found that over half of the Huawei firmware images analyzed 
had at least one potential backdoor that could allow an attacker with 
knowledge of the firmware to log into the device, and that Huawei 
continues to make firmware updates without addressing these 
vulnerabilities. Finite State articulates the concern that suppliers of 
technology, such as Huawei, with ``secret or overt access to the 
infrastructure they are providing,'' could use that access ``in times 
of peace, or perhaps [for] something far more ominous in times of 
conflict.''
    35. Also in 2019, the United Kingdom's Huawei Cyber Security 
Evaluation Centre Oversight Board released a report that sounded the 
alarm about the risks associated with Huawei's engineering processes. 
The report further revealed that Huawei had made no substantive gains 
in the remediation of issues reported in the previous year, noting 
that, ``[a]t present, the Oversight Board has not yet seen anything to 
give it confidence in Huawei's capacity to successfully complete the 
elements of its transformation program that it has proposed as a means 
of addressing these underlying defects.'' Further, in a 2013 report, 
the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament said, 
``theoretically, the Chinese State may be able to exploit any 
vulnerability in Huawei's equipment in order to gain some access to the 
BT network, which would provide them with an attractive espionage 
opportunity.''
    36. Furthermore, a recent report from Recorded Future, a cyber 
threat intelligence firm, found that ``[t]he enormous range of products 
and services offered by Huawei generates a nearly unimaginable amount 
of data for one company to possess.'' This problem is compounded by 
Huawei's ``desire to be an end-to-end provider for whole network 
solutions.'' As the 2012 HPSCI Report found, when companies ``seek to 
control the market for sensitive equipment and infrastructure that 
could be used for spying and other malicious purposes, the lack of 
market diversity becomes a national concern for the United States and 
other countries.'' Huawei's desire to limit diversity in equipment 
poses a threat to the security of U.S. communications networks. Its 
access to this vast amount of data combined with its close ties to the 
Chinese government and its obligation under Chinese law to assist with 
Chinese intelligence-gathering mean that ``Huawei is potentially 
subjected to a government-driven obligation to capitalize on its global 
network and consumer devices ecosystem to fulfill core [Chinese 
government] national security and economic dominance objectives.'' 
Given the multitude of evidence about the threat that Huawei equipment 
presents, along with the company's unique and close relationship to the 
Chinese government, the Commission disagrees with Huawei's claim that 
there is no support for the conclusion that its equipment poses a 
threat. The fact that Huawei's subsidiaries act outside of China does 
not mean that their parent company lacks influence over their 
operations and decisions given the strong influence that Huawei's 
parent companies and the Chinese government can exert over their 
affiliates. The Commission additionally disagrees with Huawei's 
assertion that the Chinese NIL is irrelevant because it is merely a 
``defensive measure'' that does not ``provide authority for Chinese 
intelligence agencies to engage in offensive intelligence activities.'' 
The broad nature of the Chinese NIL, along with the Chinese 
government's control over Huawei and history of espionage activities, 
presents far too great a risk to the security of U.S. communications 
networks to rely on the assurance that the Chinese government will act 
only in a vaguely-defined ``defensive'' manner. While the Commission 
recognizes that the Chinese NIL may be interpreted in different ways, 
the fact remains that entities such as Huawei that are subject to the 
NIL, and subject to the Chinese legal regime generally, pose too great 
a risk to the security of communications networks and the 
communications supply chain.

[[Page 236]]

    37. The Commission also disagrees with Huawei's criticisms of the 
Finite State report. Huawei argues that the Finite State report focused 
on old versions of Huawei's equipment and did not follow ``general 
practices'' of security testing, which it argues, ``typically involves 
dialogue between the security company and vendor'' about 
vulnerabilities. However, unlike a report that assesses a zero-day 
threat and would typically include dialogue with the vendor to provide 
time to mitigate the threat, Finite State's report was a general risk 
analysis report and was focused primarily on the culture of risk 
management at Huawei. In response to Huawei's public criticisms of its 
report, Finite State determined that, ``Based on 8 years of analysis of 
[UK Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre] reports, along with the 
recent Finite States analysis, the Commission can clearly see that 
Huawei's security posture has not materially improved over time.'' 
Indeed, the Commission agrees with Finite State that ``Huawei cannot 
deny that, now, multiple organizations have independently found 
similar, substantial security vulnerabilities in their products.''
    38. In the light of the record in the proceeding and other publicly 
available information detailing the scope of the risk of allowing 
Huawei's equipment and services into our communications networks, and 
given that the Chinese government has the ``means, opportunity, and 
motive to use telecommunications companies for malicious purposes,'' 
the Commission concludes that Huawei, its parents, affiliates, and 
subsidiaries should be initially designated as a national security 
threat to the integrity of communications networks or the 
communications supply chain for purposes of the rule the Commission 
adopts in this document.
    39. The Commission also initially designates ZTE, its parents, 
affiliates, and subsidiaries as a covered company for purposes of the 
Commission's rule.
    40. As with Huawei, ZTE has close ties to the Chinese military 
apparatus, having originated from the Ministry of Aerospace, a 
government agency. In fact, ZTE is still alleged to be partially owned 
by the Chinese government. As the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence found, ZTE is in essence, ``a hybrid serving both 
commercial and military needs.'' In particular, much of ZTE's ownership 
constitutes state owned enterprises, and, like Huawei, ZTE contains an 
internal Communist Party Committee, as required by the laws of China. 
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also found that 
ZTE has not allayed the Committee's concerns that it ``is aligned with 
Chinese military and intelligence activities or research institutes.'' 
As described in this document, legislative concern with ZTE equipment 
and services has been ongoing, with Congress passing, and the President 
signing into law, significant restrictions on the purchase and use of 
ZTE equipment.
    41. Open source information highlights the risks posed by ZTE 
equipment. In April 2018, the Department of Defense announced that ZTE 
and Huawei devices would no longer be offered for sale at U.S. military 
bases and ordered them removed from its stores worldwide. In August 
2018, a report funded by the Department of Homeland Security's Science 
and Technology Directorate found a wide range of vulnerabilities in a 
number of mobile devices manufactured and marketed by ZTE. The report 
indicated that the vulnerabilities are built into the phones during the 
manufacturing process and could allow malicious access to user data. 
While the USF generally does not fund end-user devices such as phones, 
the security concerns raised regarding ZTE mobile phones give the 
Commission concerns about other ZTE equipment and services, including 
those funded by the USF. The National Security Institute published a 
report in January 2019 that describes the underlying risks posed by 
both Huawei and ZTE systems and recommends ``additional restrictions on 
Huawei and ZTE products and services in the U.S.'' As with Huawei, 
ZTE's equipment has been barred in Australia and New Zealand.
    42. Finally, the DoJ, in supporting the Commission's initial 
designations of Huawei and ZTE, has noted that ZTE pleaded guilty to 
violating our embargo on Iran by sending approximately $32 million 
dollars' worth of U.S. goods to Iran and obstructing justice in an 
effort to thwart DoJ's investigation. Such disregard for American law 
in furtherance of the interests of foreign governments is additional 
evidence of the danger posed by Huawei and ZTE equipment in our 
communications networks.
    43. Given that the Chinese government has the ``means, opportunity, 
and motive to use telecommunications companies for malicious 
purposes,'' the Commission concludes that ZTE Corporation, its parents, 
affiliates, and subsidiaries should be initially designated as a 
national security threat to the integrity of communications networks or 
the communications supply chain for purposes of the rule the Commission 
adopts in this document.
    44. The Commission directs the Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau (PSHSB) to implement the next steps in the designation processes 
for Huawei and ZTE. The Commission also directs PSHSB going forward to 
make both initial and final designations, to reverse prior 
designations, and to issue the public notices required in the 
designation process. PSHSB shall have discretion to revise this process 
if appropriate to the circumstances, consistent with providing affected 
parties an opportunity to respond and with any need to act 
expeditiously in individual cases. To the extent that a designated 
entity seeks review of a designation decision--from either PSHSB or the 
full Commission--PSHSB or the Commission shall act on such petition for 
reconsideration or application for review, respectively, within 120 
days of the filing by a designated entity. The Commission finds that 
this time limitation is important to provide regulatory certainty to 
entities affected by designations made at the Commission or bureau 
level, and consistent with the national security interests at stake. 
The Commission or PSHSB may, however, extend such 120-day deadline for 
good cause.
    45. Huawei and ZTE. The designations adopted herein for Huawei and 
ZTE shall serve as initial designations. Interested parties may file 
comments responding to these initial designations. Such comments are 
due 30 days after publication of the Report and Order in the Federal 
Register. After the conclusion of the comment period, PSHSB shall issue 
a public notice announcing its final determination and the effective 
date of any final designation.
    46. The Commission next establishes the scope of the new 
prohibition. The rule the Commission adopts in the Report and Order 
shall apply to any and all equipment or services, including software, 
produced or provided by a covered company. USF recipients must be able 
to affirmatively demonstrate that they have not used any funds obtained 
via the USF to purchase, obtain, maintain, improve, modify, or 
otherwise support any equipment or services provided or manufactured by 
a covered company.
    47. The Commission finds it necessary to establish this broad 
prohibition on the use of USF funds to procure or otherwise support any 
and all equipment and services produced or provided by a covered 
company. Although some commenters argue that a

[[Page 237]]

prohibition precluding the expenditure of USF funds on every product 
from a covered company would not advance any material security purpose, 
and that such a restriction would be overbroad with potentially 
negative repercussions for U.S. industry, both domestically and 
overseas, the Commission believes that a blanket prohibition best 
promotes national security, provides the most administrable rule, and 
eases compliance for USF recipients. Given the dynamic and wide-ranging 
nature of the potential threats to our networks, and the Commission's 
specific responsibility to protect against threats posed by USF-funded 
equipment and services, the Commission finds a complete prohibition on 
the expenditure of USF funds on any and all equipment and services from 
a covered company to be the only reliable protection against potential 
incursions. The Commission recognizes that a complete prohibition may 
impose attendant costs on providers, who must ensure that equipment or 
services obtained using USF funds do not use equipment or services 
produced or provided by a covered company, and the rural consumers 
served by these providers. However, the Commission finds that these 
costs are outweighed by the need to ensure that the services funded by 
USF are secure and by the benefits to our national security and the 
nation's communications networks.
    48. Malware and vulnerabilities can be designed and built directly 
into communications equipment, even when that equipment is not the 
covered company's flagship equipment. Thus, these vulnerabilities can 
often be difficult to discover. Moreover, the transition to emerging 
next-generation networks and the accelerated adoption of virtualized 
distributed network infrastructure increases the number of attack 
points in the network and makes networks more susceptible to attacks 
and unauthorized intrusions. Given the increased risk that allowing any 
equipment from a covered company on the network can cause significant 
harm, the Commission cannot allow for bad actors to circumvent the 
Commission's prohibitions through clever engineering.
    49. The Commission further finds that a complete prohibition on the 
expenditure of USF funds for all equipment and services produced or 
provided by a covered company will provide regulatory certainty and 
will be easier for providers to implement and for the Commission to 
enforce. The Commission agrees with Vermont Telephone, which argues 
that the Commission's rule ``would eliminate uncertainty and reduce 
regulatory burdens that fall most heavily on small operators,'' and 
that adopting the Commission's rule would ``level the competitive 
playing field by creating incentives for operators to secure their 
networks rather than opting to deploy lower-cost Chinese manufactured 
equipment.'' The Commission's decision to adopt a complete prohibition 
rather than a narrow one will greatly reduce administrative costs for 
both providers and consumers as it would be time consuming and costly 
to require determinations on a product-by-product basis as to whether 
any given equipment is subject to the prohibition. Relatedly, it will 
be simpler for participants, and thus more cost effective, to comply 
with a blanket ban on the use of USF funds on any and all equipment and 
services produced or provided by covered entities. Compliance costs 
will also be reduced because providers will more easily be able to 
certify that their subsidiaries and affiliates have not used USF funds 
to purchase, obtain, maintain, improve, modify, or otherwise support 
any equipment of a covered company. It would be far more difficult, 
costly, and invasive for the Commission to obligate providers to verify 
this same commitment on a product-by-product or even component-by-
component basis. By the same token, it will be far simpler and more 
cost-effective for Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to 
audit and verify any such certification based on a blanket ban rather 
than a more selective product-by-product prohibition.
    50. The Commission is not persuaded that uncertainty in the 
purchasing process dictates a narrower prohibition. Some commenters 
argue that it is difficult to know from which companies they are 
purchasing equipment and that a blanket prohibition within the USF is 
therefore unreasonable. They claim this difficulty is especially 
apparent in instances of ``white labeling,'' where a covered company 
provides equipment or services to a third-party entity for sale under 
that third party's brand and the purchaser may not know the covered 
company's equipment is part of the purchased product. Although the 
Commission understands the complications inherent in the purchasing 
process, it believes it is the responsibility of all USF recipients to 
work with their suppliers to understand what equipment and services 
they are purchasing and to ensure that such equipment and services are 
not produced or provided by a covered company. Indeed, were the 
Commission to find white labeling as outside the scope of its 
prohibition, it would create an obvious and transparent loophole for 
companies that pose a national to national security to sneak their 
equipment into our communications networks.
    51. The Commission also makes clear that USF recipients may 
continue to use these federal funds to maintain, improve, modify, or 
otherwise support their communications networks generally so long as no 
such funding goes toward any equipment or services provided or 
manufactured by a covered company. For example, a USF recipient could 
use funding to maintain gas-powered generators or battery cells that 
provide back-up power to radio access network equipment, purchase 
backhaul facilities and interconnection services from third parties, 
upgrade and maintain switches and routers, and otherwise expend USF 
funds on equipment and services that support a provider's network in 
whole or in part and are not solely used in the maintenance or support 
of covered equipment. In contrast, a USF recipient could not use 
federal funds to upgrade covered equipment, install software updates on 
such equipment, or pay for a maintenance contract to the extent that 
contract covers covered equipment--even when such upgrades, 
installations, and contracts are not directly offered by a covered 
company. Similarly, a USF recipient would not be permitted to use USF 
support to pay its internal staff to perform maintenance on any 
equipment or services produced or provided by a covered company. Such 
expenditures would be directly and solely targeted at supporting 
equipment that poses a national security threat to our communications 
networks and allowing such expenditures to be paid for with federal 
funds would counter the Commission's goal of securing American 
communications networks and incentivizing the replacement of such 
equipment with equipment from trusted vendors.
    52. The Commission notes that its rule does not prohibit USF 
recipients from using their own funds to purchase or obtain equipment 
or services from covered companies, but USF recipients must be able to 
clearly demonstrate that no USF funds were used to purchase, obtain, 
maintain, improve, modify, or otherwise support any equipment or 
services produced or provided by a covered entity. But the Commission 
cautions USF recipients that choose to install new equipment or 
purchase new services from covered companies. Where a project involves 
the purchase of such equipment, the Commission believes it unlikely 
that many USF

[[Page 238]]

recipients will be able to show the detailed records necessary to 
demonstrate that no USF funds were used on equipment or services from a 
covered company on any part of that project. For example, if a USF 
recipient tried to install a new cellular radio base station from a 
company that has been designated as a national security threat, all 
labor and other expenditures for that installation are part and parcel 
of installing an insecure network. The Commission is thus skeptical 
that any USF recipient seeking to use USF funds on an ``eligible'' 
portion of such a project would will be able to establish with the 
necessary certainty, even with a detailed recordkeeping process in 
place, that no part of the installation process, including the base 
station and any and all related expenditures, are paid for using USF 
funds. However, the Commission does not entirely foreclose the 
possibility that a USF recipient might be able to segregate the use of 
federal funds from other funds for the completion of a particular 
project, and the Commission reminds recipients that such expenditures 
will be subject to the audit and enforcement mechanisms described 
herein.
    53. The Commission agrees with commenters who suggest a whole-of-
government approach to supply chain security. The Commission's 
oversight of the USF requires them to act so that USF funds are not 
used in a manner that undermines the security of communications 
networks. In addition, the Commission has a responsibility to act in 
order to support the ongoing efforts of the federal government to 
protect communications networks and the communications supply chain 
from security threats. The prohibition the Commission adopts in this 
document applies only to equipment and services in the context of the 
USF, so the Commission believes this limited application of the 
prohibition will advance the interests of network security and will 
provide necessary certainty to affected USF participants. In short, the 
Commission's actions in the Report and Order are a vital part of that 
approach and will complement the activities of other federal agencies 
and Congress.
    54. The Commission disagrees with RWA, which contends that the 
prohibition it adopts in this document should extend only to 
``additional equipment'' and ``new services'' not yet procured and 
deployed; such a distinction would do nothing to address the threat 
posed by existing equipment. If anything, it would magnify this risk by 
enabling providers to continue to use USF support to maintain, improve, 
modify, operate, manage, renew, or otherwise support such equipment. 
Restricting the prohibition the Commission adopts in this document to 
apply only to equipment that has not yet been purchased would not only 
undercut the purpose behind this proscription, but could actively 
increase the risks posed by existing equipment.
    55. The Commission acknowledges the concerns of some commenters who 
contend that ``rural co-ops and closely held companies are massively 
restricted in their financial operations'' and argue that USF support 
is ``often critical'' in order to maintain the operational viability of 
their networks. While this may be true in the case of some rural 
carriers, the Commission is unwilling to allow USF dollars to be used 
in support of equipment and services that pose a direct and immediate 
threat to our national security and the security of our networks. To do 
so would place our communications networks and supply chains as a whole 
at risk. No provider has yet offered the detailed financial records 
that would be necessary for the Commission to determine whether an 
individual provider actually could not maintain its existing network 
without violating its rule--and the Commission reminds providers that 
they remain free to seek a waiver of this prohibition in the 
exceptional case where they would be unable to operate their networks 
absent the use of USF funds to maintain or otherwise support equipment 
or services produced or provided by covered companies.
    56. While the rule the Commission adopts in this document will not, 
in and of itself, completely address the risks posed by equipment or 
services produced or provided by covered companies, that is no reason 
not to adopt the rule, as RWA appears to argue. As the Commission has 
already stated, the targeted rule it adopts in this document is part of 
the Commission's continuing efforts to protect the nation's 
communications networks and supply chain from potential security 
threats. These efforts are, by their very nature, ongoing and 
incremental. The Commission's is a specific but nevertheless important 
role in securing the communications supply chain and our nation's 
communications infrastructure.
    57. Upgrades to Existing Equipment. The Commission next clarifies 
that the prohibition will apply to upgrades and maintenance of existing 
equipment and services. As explained in this document, this restriction 
includes a prohibition on using USF funds to pay third parties or a 
carrier's own employees to maintain or repair equipment from covered 
services. Costs for such services must be paid with non-USF funds. The 
rule the Commission adopts in this document prohibits USF recipients 
from using USF funds to purchase, obtain, maintain, improve, modify, or 
otherwise support equipment or services provided or produced by covered 
companies in addition to purchasing such equipment or services. The 
Commission specifically extends this prohibition to include upgrades to 
existing equipment and services. Several commenters have argued that 
upgrades to existing equipment should be exempt from the Commission's 
rule, claiming any prohibition on the use of USF funds to support 
upgrades to existing equipment would ``effectively mandate replacement 
of those products before the end of their life-cycle or force companies 
receiving USF monies to run outdated or inadequately maintained 
equipment.'' Others argue that such upgrades should be exempted because 
they are necessary to preserve equipment functionality, performance, 
and security.
    58. The Commission recognizes that this rule may encourage some 
providers to choose not to upgrade equipment and instead to replace 
these products prior to the end of their life-cycle, or risk running 
outdated and inadequately maintained equipment. The Commission notes 
that such upgrades are in fact in the public interest because they 
would increase the security of our communications networks. Indeed, the 
Commission finds the risk posed by covered companies' products is too 
great to continue to allow federal funds to be used to purchase, 
obtain, maintain, improve, modify, or otherwise support them. To do so 
would allow these funds to be used to perpetuate existing security 
risks to the communications supply chain and the communications 
networks of this country. Further, the Commission is not restricting 
USF recipients from performing needed upgrades or maintenance to 
equipment procured from a covered company so long as they do not use 
USF funds to do so. Although the Commission may have concerns, it 
acknowledges that providers may continue to use and improve such 
equipment consistent with all other legal requirements, but they may 
not perform such maintenance or upgrades using USF funds. Affected 
carriers may of course file a request for waiver if they are manifestly 
unable to maintain their networks absent the use of USF funds to 
support equipment or services produced or provided by covered 
companies, and such failure poses a risk to public safety. The

[[Page 239]]

Commission evaluates waivers on a fact-specific basis.
    59. Compliance Certifications. The Commission agrees with 
commenters who argue that the Commission should require recipients of 
universal service support to provide a certification that they have 
complied with the rule it adopts in this document. The Commission does 
not, at this time, require manufacturers to submit separate 
certifications, although USF recipients may require such certifications 
from manufacturers as part of their own contracts. The Commission 
directs WCB, in coordination with USAC, to revise the relevant 
information collections for each of the four USF programs to require a 
certification attesting to compliance with the rule adopted in this 
document. Given the variety of ways that USF participants file and 
certify to rule compliance, the Commission finds that directing WCB to 
develop such a certification for each respective program is the best 
means by which to implement this new certification requirement.
    60. Audits and Recovery of Funds. The Commission believes that USAC 
audits are the most effective way to determine compliance with the 
requirements of the Report and Order, and the Commission directs USAC 
to implement audit procedures for each program consistent with the 
rules it adopts in this document. USF recipients must be able to 
affirmatively demonstrate that no universal service funds were used to 
purchase, obtain, maintain, improve, modify, or otherwise support any 
equipment or services provided or manufactured by covered companies. 
The Commission notes that applicants in the E-rate and Rural Health 
Care programs already retain and provide information either during the 
application process or during audit and program integrity assurance 
processes that could demonstrate (if verified) that no USF funds were 
improperly used. And the Commission notes that many ETCs receiving High 
Cost funding now report the projects they complete using federal funds 
to the High Cost Universal Broadband portal, allowing relatively swift 
verification by USAC of compliance. If USAC knows the specific 
locations where federal funds were used to build communications 
networks, it can verify what equipment and services are used at those 
locations and audit that usage if necessary. To the extent that other 
ETCs do not yet report information to USAC that would verify 
compliance, the Commission directs WCB and USAC to revise its 
information collection and audit procedures to ensure the reporting of 
USF expenditures in a manner that will allow efficient oversight and 
thorough compliance.
    61. Some commenters have argued that, for purposes of the E-Rate 
and Rural Health Care programs, service providers are in the best 
position to prevent violations of the rule and, as a result, should be 
the party responsible for recovery in cases where funds have been 
disbursed in violation of the rule. The Commission sees no reason to 
depart from the requirement that directs USAC to pursue recovery 
actions against the party or parties that committed the rule or 
statutory violation in question, recognizing that, in some instances, 
this could be the applicant school, library, health care provider, or 
consortium, rather than the service provider. The determination of 
which entity to seek recovery from is a factual determination based on 
the specific facts of the violation, and the Commission sees no need to 
establish a rule requiring recovery only from service providers.
    62. Waivers. The Commission agrees with commenters who support a 
meaningful waiver process. As with any Commission rule, USF recipients 
may seek waivers of the rule the Commission establishes in this 
document. The Commission disagrees with commenters who suggest that it 
imposes a 90-day shot clock for resolution of such waivers. Commenters 
have provided no persuasive argument supporting the establishment of an 
arbitrary deadline for resolution of waiver requests and the Commission 
similarly refrains from establishing any specialized waiver 
requirements for the rule adopted in this document.
    63. Because of the compelling interest in protecting our national 
security, the Commission concludes that the rule it adopts in this 
document should take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal 
Register. For purposes of the Lifeline and High-Cost Support Programs, 
any prohibition on the use of USF funds will take effect immediately 
upon publication of the effective date contained in the Final 
Designation Notice designating an entity as a covered company posing a 
national security threat. A requirement that USF recipients certify 
that they are in compliance with the Commission's rule will take effect 
following revision of each information collection as described in this 
document, including approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    64. In the April 2018 Protecting Against National Security Threats 
Notice, the Commission made clear that its proposed rule would apply 
only prospectively. The Commission sought comment on how long USF 
recipients would need to comply with the rule and whether it should 
consider phasing in the rule for certain programs or USF recipients. 
The Commission agrees with commenters who argue that the Commission 
should not delay the effective date of the rule. These commenters 
contend that service providers have long been aware of the security 
risks associated with certain vendors that may affect their ability to 
continue to receive federal funding, and thus many service providers 
have already made the business decision to purchase equipment from 
alternative vendors, precisely to avoid the security risks and the 
possible greater costs those risks might present in the long run. Given 
the important national security concerns at stake in the proceeding, 
the Commission believes it is critical that it moves forward 
expeditiously. Moreover, because many service providers have already 
made the business decision to purchase equipment from alternative 
vendors in order to avoid security risks, the Commission believes that 
the impact of an immediate effective date will be minimal. Given the 
industry's long-standing knowledge of the risks posed by the 
installation and purchase of such equipment, the Commission does not 
believe that a phase-in period is necessary. Indeed, the important 
national security concerns at issue necessitate swift action.
    65. Moreover, because the rule is prospective in effect, it does 
not prohibit the use of existing services or equipment already deployed 
or in use. USF recipients may continue to use equipment or services 
provided or produced by covered companies obtained prior to the 
issuance of the rule, but may not use USF funds to purchase, obtain, 
maintain, improve, modify, or otherwise support such equipment or 
services in any way.
    66. The Commission next clarifies how its rule shall apply for E-
Rate and Rural Health Care recipients. Specifically, unlike other USF 
recipients, E-Rate and Rural Health Care recipients apply for funding 
to cover specific services and equipment on coordinated basis, with 
funding tied to a particular funding year. To ensure prospective only 
effect, the rule the Commission adopts will apply to all funding years 
that start after the designation of a covered company (so the 
Commission would expect the rule prohibiting purchases from Huawei and 
ZTE that it initially designates in this document to apply for Funding 
Year 2020, starting July 1, 2020). This

[[Page 240]]

provides a common administrative deadline for applicants and USAC and 
should allow sufficient time for E-Rate and Rural Health Care 
applicants to be trained to include service provider security 
compliance as a necessary factor in the selection of providers for the 
forthcoming funding year. The Commission notes that Funding Year 2020 
for both programs begins July 1, 2020. The Commission believes that the 
decision strikes the best balance for promoting national security in a 
way that is practicable for E-Rate and Rural Health Care participants. 
For earlier funding years, the Commission directs USAC to process 
Operational Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) changes and 
service substitutions to swap out non-compliant equipment for compliant 
equipment upon a showing that the equipment not yet installed would be 
prohibited under the Commission's rule.
    67. Existing Multiyear Contracts. The Commission finds that its 
rule extends to existing contracts to acquire equipment or services 
from any covered company that were negotiated and entered into prior to 
the final designation of that entity as a covered company. In other 
words, existing multiyear contracts to acquire equipment or services 
from a covered company will not be exempt from the rule. The Commission 
disagrees with commenters who favor such an exemption. Exempting 
existing multiyear contracts would negate the purpose behind the 
Commission's rule and allow federal funds to be used to perpetuate 
existing security risks to communications networks and the 
communications supply chain.
    68. Some commenters raise a number of constitutional challenges to 
the rule the Commission adopts in this document. They argue that the 
action adopted in this document, violates principles of due process, 
that it amounts to an unconstitutional bill of attainder, and that it 
amounts to a regulatory taking by denying carriers any economically 
productive use of their existing networks. The Commission finds these 
arguments unpersuasive.
    69. Both carriers and suppliers argue that a national security 
condition on USF funding would violate their due process rights 
guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth 
Amendment provides that ``[n]o person shall be . . . deprived of life, 
liberty, or property, without due process of law.'' These due process 
challenges, therefore, involve two questions: First, whether carriers 
or suppliers are deprived of a protected interest in ``property'' or 
``liberty.'' And second, if they are, whether the procedures employed 
by the Commission comport with principles of due process. The 
Commission concludes that the rule and its application, as adopted in 
this document and applied initially to Huawei and ZTE, do not violate 
the due process rights of USF recipients, of suppliers generally, or of 
Huawei and ZTE specifically. The Commission discusses these conclusions 
in the following.
    70. Carriers' Due Process Claims. CCA, on behalf of its carrier 
members, argues that the rule will violate the due process rights of 
carriers that rely on USF support in two ways. First, CCA asserts, the 
rule will interfere with carriers' ``long-standing investment-backed 
reliance interests'' in their telecommunications networks. Second, CCA 
claims that the rule ``violates the due process rights of equipment, 
device and service providers, as well as the carriers who rely on 
them'' by failing to provide ``an opportunity to review the 
unclassified evidence on which the official actor relied.'' Because 
this second argument primarily concerns the due process rights of 
suppliers and is also raised by them in more detail, the Commission 
addresses it--along with suppliers' other concerns--in the following.
    71. Regarding its first argument, CCA explains that many carriers 
have upgraded or are upgrading their networks to the newest available 
technologies, including by contracting with foreign suppliers who offer 
competitive pricing, in service of ``the USF's mandate to provide 
affordable telecommunications access to underserved communities.'' 
Invoking FCC v. Fox Television Stations, CCA argues that these carriers 
``did not have fair notice of what would be forbidden,'' and invoking 
General Motors Corp. v. Romein, CCA asserts that the proposed rule 
``unfairly interferes with carriers' legitimate expectations without 
sufficient justification.''
    72. In Romein, General Motors challenged the effect of a Michigan 
workers' compensation statute that required it to retroactively pay 
workers' compensation benefits. General Motors argued that the 
statute's retroactive provisions ``unreasonably interfered with closed 
transactions,'' and thereby violated due process. Applying rational 
basis review, the Court rejected this challenge and found that the 
statute was a rational means of achieving a legitimate objective. 
Huawei similarly argues that the rule the Commission adopts in this 
document would violate the Administrative Procedure Act as a rule that 
has ``unreasonable secondary retroactivity.'' While the Commission 
acknowledges that the rule may have some retroactive effect, the 
Commission finds that any retroactive effect is reasonable in light of 
the goals of the Report and Order. Secondary retroactivity is reviewed 
under a reasonableness standard to determine whether or not it is 
arbitrary or capricious. The Commission notes that the rule and the 
initial designation of Huawei and ZTE as covered companies will not 
explicitly prevent Huawei from selling its products to any company. And 
as noted, the Commission concludes that multiyear contracts cannot be 
exempt from the rule, given that such an exemption would largely 
undermine the national security goals of the Report and Order.
    73. At the outset, at least with respect to Huawei and ZTE, the 
Commission rejects the premise that carriers had a ``legitimate 
expectation'' of being able to continue to purchase products and 
services from them using USF funds and ``did not have fair notice'' 
that a rule like the one adopted in this document may be imposed. 
Mounting public concern about these entities was apparent at least as 
early as 2010, when a bipartisan group of lawmakers wrote a letter to 
the Chairman of the FCC, requesting information about the security of 
U.S. telecommunications networks in light of potential deals between 
U.S. carriers and Huawei and ZTE.
    74. Moreover, CCA's reliance on Fox Television is misplaced. That 
case addressed whether the FCC had violated the due process rights of 
two television networks by failing to give them fair notice that, in 
contrast to a prior FCC policy, a fleeting expletive or a fleeting shot 
of nudity could be actionably indecent. Here, by contrast, the 
Commission has issued a Notice and allowed interested parties to 
comment on the proposed rule, which will only be applied prospectively 
and does not require carriers to remove or stop using any already-
purchased equipment or services. This situation is materially different 
than that presented in Fox Television, and at least one court has 
rejected an attempt to invoke Fox Television under similar 
circumstances, where parties were given notice and an opportunity to 
comment on the proposed rule. Finally, the Commission disagrees with 
CCA's apparent assertion that it has not provided ``sufficient 
justification'' to satisfy the test for rational basis review 
articulated in General Motors. The government has a legitimate interest 
in safeguarding

[[Page 241]]

national security, and the Commission's rule is a rational means of 
furthering that interest.
    75. Suppliers' Due Process Claims. Some commenters--including 
Huawei--argue that due process requires that the rule offer suppliers 
designated as national security threats notice and a meaningful 
opportunity to respond to the evidence against them. Assuming that a 
designation could result in a deprivation of a cognizable liberty or 
property interest, an argument which the Commission considers and 
rejects in the following, the Commission has provided and will continue 
to provide due process as required under the Constitution and process 
in conformance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Under Mathews v. 
Eldridge and other applicable precedent, due process requires that the 
deprived party be afforded notice of the action, including enough 
information about the factual basis for the action to allow for a 
meaningful challenge, and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. An 
evaluation of the sufficiency of the process will consider the private 
interest that would be affected, the risk of an erroneous deprivation 
of such interest through the procedures used (and the probable value, 
if any, of additional procedural safeguards), and the government's 
interest, including the burdens of additional procedural requirements.
    76. The rulemaking proceeding has provided and will continue to 
provide Huawei and ZTE with notice and an opportunity to be heard on 
the issue of whether they should be designated under the rule adopted 
in the Report and Order. The Protecting Against National Security 
Threats Notice in the proceeding set forth Congress's concern with both 
companies and explained that this concern stems from the fact that both 
companies are subject to such a degree of undue influence by the 
Chinese government as to raise counterintelligence and security 
concerns. It was clear from the Protecting Against National Security 
Threats Notice that the Commission was considering designating them 
under the proposed rule. In fact, the Protecting Against National 
Security Threats Notice specifically sought comment on ``defin[ing] 
covered companies as those specifically barred by the National Defense 
Authorization Act from providing a substantial or essential component, 
or critical technology, of any system, to any federal agency or 
component thereof,'' and the WCB specifically sought comment on how the 
2019 NDAA should affect the Commission's approach in the proceeding. 
Huawei responded to the Protecting Against National Security Threats 
Notice at great length, and the Commission has fully considered those 
arguments. As with any Commission decision, the Report and Order is 
subject to procedures for reconsideration by the Commission and for 
judicial review.
    77. Further, both Huawei and ZTE will have an additional 
opportunity to respond to the factual allegations supporting their 
initial designation under the process established in the Report and 
Order. The initial determination adopted in the Report and Order 
expands on the concerns raised in the Protecting Against National 
Security Threats Notice and responds to Huawei's submissions that 
attempted to address these concerns. Huawei and ZTE will have a further 
chance to respond before PSHSB issues a final designation that either 
affirms or rejects the initial designation. The Commission therefore 
concludes that Huawei and ZTE will be afforded all the process that is 
due in the proceeding.
    78. For all other designations, the Commission will adhere to the 
process discussed in this document, which includes notice and an 
opportunity to comment on any initial designation, a description of the 
basis for such initial designation and, if opposed, a written final 
determination subject to review by the Commission and, ultimately, the 
courts. Any such designation will also be subject to review, and 
potentially reversal, in the future if such an entity, or another 
interested entity, can demonstrate that it should no longer bear such a 
designation.
    79. Huawei is incorrect when it argues that it violates the Due 
Process Clause to issue this adjudicatory decision in the context of a 
rulemaking proceeding. There is no requirement that designations be 
made pursuant to the formal adjudicatory procedures of the 
Administrative Procedure Act. Rather, the relevant question is whether 
the affected parties have had the ``opportunity to present, at least in 
written form, such evidence as those entities may be able to produce to 
rebut the administrative record.'' Huawei has already done so here, and 
ZTE had the same opportunity. There is nothing improper about issuing a 
designation pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding. Additionally, Huawei 
and ZTE will have a further opportunity to specifically respond to 
their initial designation during the comment period adopted in the 
Report and Order.
    80. Moreover, the Fifth Amendment guarantees due process only where 
government action threatens or deprives an individual of life, liberty, 
or property. The Commission finds that designated suppliers and/or 
carriers do not suffer a deprivation of life, liberty, or property 
sufficient to trigger due process protections. Huawei claims that 
designating it under the rule the Commission adopts in this document 
would deprive it of liberty in three related ways: (1) By interfering 
with its freedom to practice a chosen profession; (2) by debarring it 
or effectively debarring it by preventing it from selling equipment and 
services to USF recipients; and (3) by imposing a ``stigma'' 
sufficiently serious to alter Huawei's legal status. The Commission 
finds none of these arguments persuasive.
    81. First, covered companies are not barred from a field of 
employment. Unlike the aggrieved parties in the cases cited by Huawei 
and CCA, the suppliers found to be a threat to national security will 
not be broadly excluded from a profession or field--such as aeronautics 
or law. To the contrary, any such designated suppliers will be free to 
pursue their business by serving as suppliers to a variety of carriers; 
in fact, as one commenter pointed out, a designation would not formally 
restrict them from conducting business with any customer, including 
those who participate in USF programs.
    82. Second, the adopted rule does not debar covered companies, 
either through ``formal debarment'' or through ``broad preclusion, 
equivalent in every practical sense to formal debarment.'' Huawei 
itself recognizes an uneasy fit with the debarment cases it cites, 
conceding that those cases ``merely involve actions that preclude 
private entities from transacting with the Government, while the 
proposed rule would preclude private entities from transacting with 
other private entities who spend federal funds.'' Huawei argues, inter 
alia, that the proposed rule meets the definition of debarment in 
section 54.8 of the Commission's rules. Even assuming Huawei is 
``debarred'' from the USF under this definition, it is not ``debarred'' 
as the term is used in the cases cited by Huawei, which, as Huawei 
itself notes, involve government actions precluding private entities 
from serving the government. The Commission is similarly unconvinced by 
Huawei's attempt to analogize itself to a subcontractor. While there is 
some authority for the proposition that due process protections extend 
to the debarment of subcontractors, Huawei and other affected suppliers 
are not subcontractors, and, even if they were, designation here does 
amount to de facto debarment--it does not prevent

[[Page 242]]

designated suppliers from doing business with the government or 
carriers (the prime contractors, in Huawei's analogy).
    83. The rule here does not prevent any private entity from 
transacting with the government--either formally or through broad 
preclusion equivalent to formal debarment--nor does it completely 
prevent entities from transacting with carriers who receive USF 
funding.
    84. Third, designation as a covered company does not create a 
deprivation by imposing a stigma sufficiently serious to alter a 
supplier's legal status. To establish a deprivation under this 
``stigma-plus'' theory, a party must show (1) the public disclosure of 
a stigmatizing claim by the government; and (2) an accompanying denial 
of ``some more tangible interest such as employment, or the alteration 
of a right or status recognized by state law.'' With respect to the 
first prong, assuming arguendo that designation by the Commission as a 
threat to national security is likely to impose some amount of stigma, 
the stigmatized party must also satisfy the ``plus'' factor of the 
``stigma plus'' test. Courts have found this factor satisfied where the 
government has deprived a party of some benefit to which it has a legal 
right, like the ability to purchase alcohol or fly. The D.C. Circuit 
has found this prong satisfied where the government-imposed stigma is 
so severe that it ``broadly precludes'' the stigmatized party from 
``pursuing a chosen trade or business.'' The Commission finds that the 
rule adopted in this document does not satisfy this prong.
    85. Huawei argues that the alleged stigma of a designation under 
the proposed rule would alter its status in two ways. First, by 
``barring the use of universal service funds to buy the company's 
equipment.'' Second, by having the practical effect of discouraging 
other U.S. entities from buying Huawei's equipment. But while 
designation may create a disincentive for carriers to purchase 
equipment from designated entities, designation imposes no explicit 
restriction on designated entities at all; designated entities remain 
free to sell to anyone, including recipients of USF. Likewise, USF 
recipients remain free to purchase equipment from designated entities--
and some may continue to do so, though they would not be able to use 
USF support for any covered equipment and services. This fact alone 
would prevent Huawei or other covered companies from establishing the 
deprivation of a legal right or the ``broad preclusion'' required in 
Trifax, the case on which Huawei principally relies in establishing 
this factor. Thus, the Commission concludes that there is no cognizable 
deprivation of liberty or property either in adopting the rule or 
designating Huawei and ZTE herein the Report and Order.
    86. Unconstitutional Taking. Some commenters assert that the 
Commission's proposed rule would constitute a regulatory taking because 
it would deny some carriers of ``all economically beneficial or 
productive use'' of their property.'' These commenters argue that the 
proposed rule would prevent carriers from upgrading, repairing, or 
servicing pre-existing equipment purchased from prohibited suppliers, 
rendering this equipment useless. Without funding to compensate 
carriers for these losses, they argue, the proposed rule will run afoul 
of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the 
government from taking ``private property . . . for public use, without 
just compensation.''
    87. The Commission disagrees with these arguments. At the outset, 
the Takings Clause applies only when ``property'' is taken, but 
Commission and judicial precedent make clear that carriers have no 
vested property interest in ongoing USF support. Therefore, there is no 
merit to any suggestion that deprivation of future USF support amounts 
to a Takings under the Fifth Amendment. While carriers do have a 
cognizable property interest in their equipment, to the extent the 
action diminishes the value of equipment carriers have already 
purchased, this interference does not amount to a regulatory taking. 
The concurrently adopted Further Notice addresses making additional 
support available pursuant to NDAA section 889(b)(2)--a fact that 
arguably mitigates any takings concerns and makes any potential takings 
claim unripe. Further, there is no per se regulatory taking under Lucas 
v. South Carolina Coastal Council, because the rule will not deprive 
affected carriers of all economic value in their networks or 
equipment--the proposed rule is prospective in nature, and will allow 
them to continue using pre-existing equipment. Nor does the rule effect 
a partial regulatory taking under the three-factor test established in 
Penn Central Transportation Company v. New York City. First, the 
economic impact on affected carriers should not be severe, as they 
should still be able to use pre-existing equipment. Second, the rule 
should not upend reasonable investment-backed expectations. As 
explained in this document, the long history of concern about Huawei 
and ZTE should have served as a warning that the federal government may 
take action regarding these companies, and in any event the Protecting 
Against National Security Threats Notice provided affected carriers 
actual notice of this action. More broadly, the Commission frequently 
enacts rules adjusting the levels of USF support received by carriers, 
and has long held that carriers have no entitlement to ongoing USF 
support at current levels. Third and finally, with respect to the 
``character'' of the Commission's action, any interference could not be 
characterized as physically invading or permanently appropriating the 
property of carriers--and commenters seem to offer no argument to the 
contrary.
    88. Bill of Attainder. Lastly, Huawei argues that the rule violates 
the Bill of Attainder Clause. A law constitutes a bill of attainder 
``if it (1) applies with specificity, and (2) imposes punishment.'' 
According to the Supreme Court, ``the Bill of Attainder Clause was 
intended . . . as an implementation of the separation of powers, a 
general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial 
function, or, more simply, trial by legislature.'' Thus, ``[a] bill of 
attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a 
judicial trial.'' Huawei argues that the rule ``contravene[s] the Bill 
of Attainder Clause by targeting a small group of people for punitive 
measures.''
    89. The Commission finds this argument unpersuasive. First, the 
Supreme Court has never applied the Bill of Attainder Clause to a 
corporation like Huawei. Second, the rule cannot amount to a bill of 
attainder because it is not a ``legislative act.'' The Commission is 
unaware of any court opinion applying the Bill of Attainder clause to 
agency regulations. In a case challenging the Commission's 2011 order 
overhauling the high-cost universal service program, the Tenth Circuit 
considered and rejected a similar argument on the grounds that the 
Commission's order was not a legislative act. Second, even if the rule 
were a ``legislative act,'' it does not impose a ``punishment.'' As the 
Report and Order makes clear, the Commission has a legitimate, non-
punitive reason to take the actions contemplated by the rule--the 
protection of national security. While some of the burdens of the rule 
will fall on those entities identified as threats to national security, 
the burdens imposed will not be ``so disproportionately severe and so 
inappropriate to nonpunitive ends that they unquestionably have been 
held to

[[Page 243]]

fall within the proscription of [the Bill of Attainder Clause].''
    90. The Commission's cost benefit analysis focuses on the economic 
costs of its action. An economic cost is the extent to which resources 
are spent inefficiently, in this case, on more expensive suppliers. The 
Commission notes that record evidence indicates the vast majority of 
such costs are attributable to ETCs receiving high-cost universal 
service support. The Commission accordingly focuses its analysis on 
such costs because any costs attributable to other programs are 
unlikely to have any measurable impact on whether the benefits of the 
rule outweigh its costs. Furthermore, the records suggest that the 
dominant economic cost equals the necessary additional cost to carriers 
who choose to purchase more expensive equipment as a result of the 
Commission's action. The Commission estimates this cost and 
qualitatively consider other economic costs of its action. The 
Commission finds these other costs to be relatively small. Given the 
evidence available, the Commission estimates that the costs of the 
actions in this document will not exceed $960 million and are likely to 
be much lower.
    91. Quantifying the expected benefits of the Commission's rule is 
difficult. Nonetheless, the Commission takes into account several 
comparable situations to estimate an order of magnitude lower bound of 
benefits. Notably, a foreign adversary's access to American 
communications networks could result in hostile actions to disrupt and 
surveil our communications networks, impacting our nation's economy 
generally and online commerce specifically, and result in the breach of 
confidential data. To start, our national gross domestic product was 
$20.5 trillion last year, growing 2.9% or $595 billion last year, 
adjusting for inflation. Accordingly, preventing even a 0.005% 
disruption to our economy, or a 0.162% disruption to annual growth, 
would outweigh the costs of the prohibition. Likewise, the digital 
economy accounted for $1.35 trillion of our economy in 2017, and so 
preventing a disruption of even 0.072% would mean the benefits of the 
rule outweigh the costs. Given how dependent the general economy--let 
alone the digital economy--is on our national communications network 
and how interconnected that network is and is becoming, the Commission 
finds it likely that any potential disruption would exceed these 
measures by a large margin. As a check on the Commission's analysis, 
consider the impact of existing malicious cyber activity on the U.S. 
economy: $57 billion to $109 billion in 2016. Given the incentives and 
documented actions of hostile nation-state actors, reducing this 
activity (or preventing an expansion of such damage) by even 1.68% 
would justify the costs of the Commission's rule. Or set aside broader 
commercial implications (such as theft of trade secrets and business 
plans) and focus on the impact of data breaches on consumers: An 
estimated 7% of consumers over the age of 16 were identity theft 
victims in 2014, and the estimated average loss to an identity theft 
victim is over $2,800. Accordingly, if the Commission's rule reduced 
the incidence of data breach and identity theft by just 0.137% among 
American consumers over the age of 16, the benefits of the rule would 
outweigh the costs. In the Commission's judgment and given this 
analysis, the Commission finds the benefits of its rule to the American 
economy, commerce, and consumers are likely to significantly and 
substantially outweigh the costs by a large margin (the upper end of 
those costs being $960 million). Finally, the Commission notes that the 
benefits of the rule also extend to even harder to quantify values, 
such as preventing untrustworthy elements in the communications network 
from impacting our nation's defense, public safety, and homeland 
security operations, our military readiness, and our critical 
infrastructure, let alone the collateral damage such as loss of life 
that may occur with any mass disruption to our nation's communications 
networks. The Commission finds that the benefits of safeguarding our 
nation against these threats alone would also significantly and 
substantially outweigh the costs of the Commission's rule by a large 
margin.
    92. Calculating the Additional Cost to Carriers. The Commission 
assumes based on the initial designations that its actions will prevent 
a carrier from using universal service funds to make purchases from 
Huawei or ZTE. As carriers maintain their existing networks and upgrade 
them to new technologies such as 5G, carriers relying on universal 
service funds may choose more expensive equipment--and for the sake of 
this cost-benefit analysis, the Commission assumes that the prices of 
Huawei and ZTE tend to be lower than those of other suppliers without a 
corresponding loss in quality, reliability, or durability. Buying more 
expensive equipment or services also increases the value of the firm's 
capital base, which in turn, increases service and maintenance costs, 
and the required return on capital to bondholders and shareholders, 
resulting in a second source of cost. The Commission also estimates a 
useful lifetime of network equipment (like mobile switches) and 
exterior equipment (radio network access equipment (RAN) placed on or 
near a pole or tower) of approximately 10 years.
    93. To estimate the additional cost to carriers of the prohibition 
and given the estimated useful lifetime of network equipment, the 
Commission expects that in 10 years all Huawei and ZTE equipment that 
will be replaced (or upgraded) with universal service support will have 
been replaced. At that point, the additional annual capital outlays 
will peak, and the Commission generously estimates the total annual 
cost of its actions, including service and maintenance cost, and the 
required return on capital, will be between approximately $17 million 
and $107 million. Although the Commission initially assumes Huawei and 
ZTE maintain their (non-quality-adjusted) price advantage for 10 years, 
the Commission then allows competition to linearly eliminate that 
advantage over the next ten years. On that basis, the Commission 
estimates the present value of the cost this will impose on carriers to 
range from $160 million and $960 million.
    94. The analysis assumes constant real equipment prices. While real 
equipment prices will likely decline, it is the difference between the 
prices of alternatives to Huawei and ZTE equipment and the prices of 
Huawei and ZTE equipment that determines the reimbursement cost. While 
lower real prices would increase demand, they would also reduce the 
extent to which reimbursements from the Fund are necessary, the net 
effect of which is likely to be small relative to the error inherent in 
the Commission's estimates.
    95. In developing these estimates, the Commission first estimates 
the cost of replacing Huawei and ZTE equipment, and then estimate 
ongoing expenses. Since the Commission's Report and Order does not 
mandate replacement, the Commission does not assume that all Huawei and 
ZTE equipment is replaced by alternative equipment. Instead, the 
Commission expects that a fraction of the Huawei and ZTE equipment will 
be replaced. The Commission then estimates the ongoing expenses implied 
by the assumed replacements. However, the sum of the estimated 
replacement and ongoing costs is not entirely attributable to the 
Commission's action. Instead, it is the difference between these costs 
and the

[[Page 244]]

costs that would have been incurred if Huawei and ZTE equipment were 
used. The Commission estimates this difference using reported 
differences between the prices of Huawei and ZTE equipment and the 
prices of alternative equipment (again, setting aside for these 
purposes concerns about the lower quality, reliability, or durability 
of such lower-priced equipment).
    96. The Commission estimates the average cost for a firm to replace 
its Huawei and ZTE equipment, excluding ongoing expenses, to range from 
$40 million to $45 million. The Commission then multiplies this by an 
estimate of the number of firms that have Huawei or ZTE equipment and 
relies on universal service support, and then reduces it to account for 
the extent to which carriers will use other sources of capital to 
purchase and maintain Huawei and ZTE equipment. The result is an 
estimate of the cost of replacing Huawei and ZTE equipment, excluding 
ongoing expenses.
    97. Seven carriers reported their estimated cost of replacing 
installed Huawei or ZTE equipment. The estimates come from Pine Belt 
Cellular, Sagebrush, Union Telephone Company, NE Colorado Cellular, SI 
Wireless, United TelCom, and James Valley Telecommunications. The 
median of the firms' replacement cost estimates is $50 million.
    98. To guard against distortion due to extreme estimates, 
particularly given carriers' incentives to report higher estimates, the 
Commission prefers the median to the mean. The mean of the 7 reports, 
$94 million, is significantly raised by NE Colorado Cellular's cost 
estimate, which is 3 times larger than the next highest estimate, and 
60 times larger than the lowest estimate. NE Colorado Cellular's 
absolute costs also seem high. It reports 80% of its network to be 
Huawei equipment, which it estimates would cost $360 million to 
replace. That implies a network with a replacement cost of 
approximately $450 million (= $360 million/0.8 million). Assuming an 
annual cost factor of 25%, this implies annual expenses of $112.5 
million. As a comparison, the annual cost of switching in the Connect 
America Model is 0.2671, the sum of the annual charge factors for 
capital expenditures, 0.1476, and operating expenditures, 0.1195. (For 
the Commission's estimates of the Report and Order costs, the 
Commission uses a 30% annual charge factor, as it wishes to avoid 
understating the costs of its actions. Here, the Commission seeks to 
show that NE Colorado Cellular's costs are high, so it uses a 25% 
annual charge factor to demonstrate that their reported costs are high 
even under conservative assumptions.) NE Colorado Cellular reports 
serving 110,000 customers, so capital costs alone amount to 
approximately $85 per month per customer ($112.5 million/12/110,000 = 
$85). Of course, NE Colorado Cellular must recover costs beyond its 
capital costs. NE Colorado Cellular collects and pays roaming fees, the 
net of which could reduce the required monthly recovery from its 
customers, but presumably not radically. Thus, NE Colorado Cellular 
would need to be charging monthly subscriber fees of around or probably 
in excess of $85 per month, which seems high, especially compared with 
T-Mobile's ``Premium Unlimited Plan,'' which costs $50 per month per 
subscription when four subscriptions are purchased.
    99. The Commission expects that firms motivated to report their 
costs in the record of the proceeding have above average costs. Indeed, 
the reporting carriers are unlikely to be representative of carriers 
affected by the Commission's actions, but rather reflect carriers with 
greater incentives to put their concerns in the record, i.e., carriers 
for which the impact of a rip-and-replace requirement is large compared 
with similarly situated non-reporting carriers. In 2018, the 7 carriers 
who provided rip and replace cost estimates represented only 0.15% of 
mobile carrier end-user revenues as reported in their FCC Form 499s. 
Consequently, the Commission conservatively discounts the median of 
reported costs by between 10% and 20%, which yields an estimated 
replacement cost for each network of $40 million to $45 million.
    100. The Commission generously estimates 106 firms currently buy 
Huawei and ZTE equipment. Huawei reports serving 85 U.S. customers in 
2019. Alternatively, the Commission could rely on the Dell'Oro Group's 
North American market share estimate for ZTE of zero. This would imply 
only 85, rather than 106 purchasers, lowering the Commission's cost 
estimates by approximately 20%. Market share estimates for Huawei and 
ZTE, respectively of 31.1% and 7.5%, imply 105.5 (= 85 * (1 + 7.5/
31.1)) purchasers of equipment from Huawei and ZTE. See Dell'Oro Group, 
Market Research Reports on Mobile Radio Access Network, which also 
finds Huawei's North American share to be only 1.5% and ZTE's to be 
zero. This is likely an overestimate as both suppliers, but especially 
ZTE, have experienced a decline in their U.S. customer bases. For sake 
of this analysis, however, the Commission rounds up to 106 firms. Given 
all of these customers are not likely to be ETCs, e.g., they may be 
firms purchasing Wi-Fi routers for internal use, the Commission 
estimates between 32 (30%) and 53 (50%) of these firms accept universal 
service funds. This range is consistent with CoBANK's estimate that 30 
rural carriers are impacted.
    101. Lastly, the Commission recognizes capital is fungible, and 
carriers have some leeway to buy Huawei or ZTE equipment from other 
funding sources. For these carriers, the Commission estimates they may 
only use universal service funds to replace between 50% and 75% of 
their existing Huawei or ZTE equipment. The Commission's actions 
prevents carriers from purchasing Huawei and ZTE equipment using 
universal service funds but does not prohibit them from purchasing such 
equipment using funds from other sources so long as they can meet the 
accounting requirements described in this document. This gives the 
following lower and upper bounds for the costs of replacing installed 
Huawei or ZTE equipment:
    Lower bound: $640 million = $40 million * 32 * 50%.
    Upper bound: $1.79 billion = $45 million * 53 * 75%.
    102. Converting the Replacement Cost into a Cost Stream. Assuming 
the average useful life of the equipment in question is ten years, then 
on average in each year, 10% of the total value of the equipment must 
be replaced. The Commission adds to this an additional 20% of the value 
of the equipment for expenses for service and maintenance costs and a 
return to bondholders and shareholders. The sum equals a generous 
annual charge factor of 30%. This may be broken down into a 10% factor 
for capital purchases to maintain the capital base, and a 20% factor 
for service, maintenance, and a return to bondholders and shareholders. 
By comparison, the annual cost factor for switching in the Connect 
America Model is 0.2671 the sum of the annual cost factors for capital 
expenditures, 0.1476, and operating expenditures, 0.1195. This, with 
assumptions about prices discussed in this document, allows the 
Commission to develop a cost stream associated with each year for 20 
years.
    103. Comparing Expenses under the Report and Order with the Case of 
No Report and Order. Of course, this equipment would be replaced with 
or without the Commission's requirement. The relevant cost of the 
Commission's action is the price differential or markup between 
purchasing alternative equipment and Huawei or ZTE equipment. Sources 
suggest this markup

[[Page 245]]

ranges from 5% to 40% (not taking into account any change in quality, 
reliability, or durability). These markups do not account for quality 
differences between Huawei and ZTE, and their rivals, or the likelihood 
that these rivals' prices will become more competitive over time. The 
40% estimate, which is well above the other two estimates, comes from a 
carrier that appears particularly concerned about the Commission's 
actions, and hence may have overestimated the markup. Consequently, the 
Commission uses the mid-points of each of the other two markup 
estimates, 10% and 25%, as lower and upper bounds. Using these price 
markup assumptions and subtracting the annual cost streams in the 
absence of the Report and Order from the cost streams under the Report 
and Order results in a stream of cost differences. The Commission thus 
estimates the present value of the cost differences for the next twenty 
years that would arise due to the Report and Order ranges from $160 
million to $960 million.
    104. The Economic Efficiency Costs of the Commission's Actions. So 
far, the Commission has only discussed the replacement cost of its 
actions. To understand the potential breadth of the economic cost of 
the Commission's actions, first consider the simple case in which 
prices of both the cheaper and the more expensive providers recover no 
more than the economic costs of supply, including a return of capital 
(capital replacement), and a return on capital, accounting for the 
risks the firm's owners bear. Call this a normal profit. In that case, 
the cost just calculated is a key economic cost, representing an 
increase in resources used because the Commission's actions cause 
carriers to shift their purchases from more to less efficient 
providers. But there is a further efficiency consequence of the 
Commission's actions. Purchase from less efficient suppliers occurs at 
higher (quality-adjusted) prices. If the quality-adjusted prices of 
Huawei and ZTE are equal to their rivals' prices, then the Commission's 
actions would have no costs. However, some carriers prefer Huawei or 
ZTE to alternative suppliers, implying that these carriers view the 
prices of Huawei or ZTE to be the lowest quality-adjusted price 
available to them. This lowers output because end users face higher 
prices, and consequently purchase less than is efficient. Estimating 
the efficiency cost of this is difficult, but relative to the 
replacement cost, the distortion cost is small and likely swamped by 
the error inherent in the replacement cost estimate. This is true from 
a global as well as a domestic perspective.
    105. This can be seen by focusing on the intermediary market for 
network equipment, i.e., demand in this market is derived from demand 
for services provided to end users. This implies the distortions in the 
intermediary market reflect those in the final market. The 
reimbursement cost to the Universal Service Fund is the product of the 
amount of network equipment bought and sold at the new higher prices, 
call this Q, and the markup over Huawei and ZTE prices, call this 
[Delta]P. The cost of the distortion caused by the reduction in demand 
for network equipment due to inefficiently higher prices is the lost 
value consumers would have obtained from the additional quantity they 
would have consumed at the Huawei or ZTE prices. This lost value equals 
the area under the demand curve in the region where demand is curtailed 
due to the higher prices of the alternative suppliers. At a first 
approximation, this cost is, because demand is downward sloping, 
strictly less than the product of the change in what is bought and 
sold, call this [Delta]Q, and the change in price, [Delta]P. The 
reimbursement cost, [Delta]P * Q, swamps the distortion cost, [Delta]P 
* [Delta]Q, since Q is generally considerably larger than [Delta]Q. 
Thus, if higher prices reduce demand by 5% (= [Delta]Q/Q), then the 
distortion cost could not add more than 5% to the cost to the Universal 
Service Fund ([Delta]P * [Delta]Q/[Delta]P * Q = 5%).
    106. From a global perspective, the Commission's estimates of the 
economic cost of its actions would be higher to the extent that Huawei 
or ZTE earn more than a normal profit despite having substantially 
lower prices than their rivals. Purchases diverted to alternative 
suppliers would cause Huawei and ZTE to forgo that extra-normal profit. 
However, it seems unlikely that Huawei or ZTE earn extra-normal profit. 
Similarly, from a global perspective, the Commission's economic cost 
estimate would be lower to the extent that the prices of the rivals of 
Huawei and ZTE, today essentially being Ericsson and Nokia, incorporate 
extra-normal profits. While U.S. purchasers, and hence the Universal 
Service Fund, would be spending more when purchasing from Ericsson and 
Nokia at higher prices, to the extent these prices incorporate extra-
normal profit, this would be a transfer from the U.S. to the foreign 
owners of Ericsson and Nokia. Finally, from a global perspective, if 
Huawei or ZTE's prices are less than what is required to recover their 
costs of operations, e.g., due to a government subsidy, then the 
economic cost of the Commission's actions would be lower.
    107. The Commission rejects Huawei's claims that its actions would 
reduce 5G deployment and would materially increase mobile radio access 
network equipment prices in the U.S., which in turn would materially 
harm growth and employment in the U.S. economy. It is unlikely the 
Commission's actions will impact U.S. 5G deployment. The four largest 
U.S. mobile carriers do not use and have no plans to use Huawei (or 
ZTE) radio access network equipment. Given this, and Aron's claim that 
there are high costs associated with switching from one equipment 
manufacturer to another, it is implausible that the Commission's 
actions will affect these carriers' 5G deployment plans. More broadly, 
the Commission finds it unlikely that its actions will materially 
increase U.S. radio access network equipment prices. While carriers 
that buy equipment from covered companies could face higher prices in 
the near term (and only to the extent they use universal services funds 
to purchase that equipment), Huawei's own chief executive has admitted 
that Huawei has ``virtually no business dealings in the U.S.''--making 
it far more likely that the Commission's rule will have ``virtually 
no'' impact on 5G deployment. What is more, the Commission finds that 
ensuring a robust ecosystem of trusted vendors for 5G equipment (one 
collateral consequence of the Commission's rule) is more likely to keep 
5G equipment prices checked by a competitive market over the long term, 
facilitating deployment and continued U.S. leadership in 5G.

III. Information Collection Order

    108. In the concurrently adopted Further Notice, the Commission 
seeks comment on proposals to address the national security threats 
arising from the existing use of equipment or services produced or 
provided by covered companies. To support the Commission's future 
efforts to protect the communications supply chain, the Commission 
directs WCB and OEA, in coordination with USAC, to conduct an 
information collection to determine the extent to which potentially 
prohibited equipment exists in current networks and the costs 
associated with removing such equipment and replacing it with 
equivalent equipment. The information collection will aid the 
Commission's review of the record and guide its next steps in the 
proceeding. Because section 889(f) of the 2019 NDAA identifies specific 
companies that are prohibited from federal procurements, and the 
concurrently adopted Further Notice

[[Page 246]]

seeks comment on how to implement those and other prohibitions, the 
Commission specifically seeks comment on the extent to which equipment 
or services from companies identified in Section 889 of the NDAA exist 
in current networks.
    109. The Commission seeks information from ETCs on the potential 
costs associated with the complete removal and replacement of any 
equipment and services produced or provided by Huawei and ZTE. The 
information collection applies to all subsidiaries and affiliates of 
ETCs.
    110. Specifically, the Commission seeks information on all 
equipment and services from Huawei and ZTE that are used or owned by 
ETCs. ETCs are the subject of the Commission's proposed rule (and among 
USF recipients the most likely to currently own and use equipment and 
services from Huawei and ZTE). The Commission therefore limits its 
information collection only to ETCs and will not require cost 
information from other USF recipients at this time. The Commission 
nonetheless will allow service providers that are not ETCs to 
participate on a voluntary basis should they have ETC designation 
petitions pending (or may intend to file such in the future). And the 
Commission will allow other USF recipients who are not ETCs to 
participate on a voluntary basis as well.
    111. In implementing the information collection, WCB and OEA should 
gather information from ETCs as to whether they own equipment or 
services from Huawei or ZTE, what that equipment is and what those 
services are, the cost to purchase and/or install such equipment or 
services, and the cost to remove and replace such equipment or 
services. ETCs must demonstrate how they arrived at any cost estimates 
they provide in response to the information collection. All submissions 
must be certified to ensure the accuracy of the responses.
    112. The information collection shall be mandatory for all ETCs and 
voluntary for others. The Commission directs WCB to consider the 
potential confidentiality of any information submitted, particularly 
where public release of such information could raise security concerns 
(e.g., granular location information). The Commission expects, however, 
that the public interest in knowing whether a carrier uses equipment or 
services from Huawei or ZTE would significantly outweigh any interest 
the carrier would have in keeping such information confidential. As 
part of the information collection, the Commission directs WCB and OEA 
to seek any information necessary to verify responses provided by ETCs 
to the information collection, including by requiring further 
information from respondents. The Commission directs WCB and OEA to 
proceed expeditiously with the information collection, including by 
seeking emergency PRA approval from OMB, if necessary and appropriate. 
The Commission believes there is good cause for requesting emergency 
PRA approval from OMB for the reasons described in the following. Given 
the nature of the national security concerns, the Commission finds that 
the serious and immediate risks to communications networks likely 
justify the expedited approval of the information collection.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    113. This document contains new or modified information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted 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 the new or modified information collection requirements contained in 
the proceeding. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on 
how the Commission might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

B. Congressional Review Act

    114. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional 
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2), because it is promulgated under the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the amendments made by that Act. The 
Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, and Order to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    115. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated into the Protecting Against National Security Threats 
Notice for the proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment 
on the proposed rule in the Protecting Against National Security 
Threats Notice, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received 
only a single comment on the IRFA. Because the Commission amends its 
rules in the Report and Order, the Commission has included the Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). The present FRFA conforms to 
the RFA.
    116. Consistent with the Commission's obligation to be responsible 
stewards of the public funds used in USF programs and increasing 
concern about ensuring communications supply chain integrity, the Order 
adopts a rule that restricts universal service support from being used 
to purchase, obtain, maintain, improve, modify, or otherwise support 
any equipment or services produced or provided by any company posing a 
national security threat to the integrity of communications networks or 
the communications supply chain.
    117. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the final rules adopted pursuant to the Order. 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 concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 
definition of ``small-business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 15 
U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a 
small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with the 
Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after 
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of 
such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and 
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' A ``small-
business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and 
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    118. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission 
therefore describes in this document, at the outset, three broad groups 
of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while 
there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that 
are used in the regulatory flexibility

[[Page 247]]

analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in 
general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 
500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all 
businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 million 
businesses.
    119. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of Aug 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small 
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits 
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
    120. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there 
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 37,132 general purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,184 special purpose governments (independent school 
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. 
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the 
local government category show that the majority of these governments 
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data the Commission 
estimates that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in 
the category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
    121. Small entities potentially affected by the rules herein 
include Schools and Libraries, Healthcare Providers, Providers of 
Telecommunications and other Services, Internet Service Providers and 
Vendors and Equipment Manufacturers.
    122. Restriction on Use of USF Funds. The Order adopts a rule that 
no universal service support may be used to purchase or obtain any 
equipment or services produced or provided by a covered company posing 
a national security threat to the integrity of communications networks 
or the communications supply chain. Applicants may continue to use 
their own funds to upgrade and maintain such equipment. They must, 
however, be able to affirmatively demonstrate that they have not used 
any funds obtained via the USF to purchase, obtain, maintain, improve, 
modify, or otherwise support equipment or services provided or 
manufactured by a covered company. This restriction applies to any and 
all equipment and services, including software, produced or provided by 
a covered company. Because the rule is prospective in effect, it does 
not prohibit the use of existing services or equipment already deployed 
or in use. USF recipients may seek waivers of the requirements.
    123. Covered Companies. The Report and Order initially designates 
Huawei and ZTE as covered companies for purposes of the prohibition the 
Commission adopts in this document. Independently, the Order 
establishes a process for designating entities as national security 
threats for purposes of the Commission's rule, and delegates to the 
PSHSB the authority to implement this process, as well as the next 
steps in the designation processes for Huawei and ZTE. Because 
equipment from subsidiaries, parents, and affiliates pose the same 
risks to network integrity as equipment directly from the covered 
company, the Commission includes any subsidiary, parent, or affiliate 
of a covered company as a covered company subject to the Commission's 
prohibition.
    124. Effective Date of Rule. Because of the compelling interest in 
protecting our national security, the Commission concludes that the 
rule it adopts in this document should take effect immediately upon 
publication in the Federal Register. For purposes of the Lifeline and 
High-Cost Support Programs, any prohibition on the use of USF funds 
will take effect immediately upon publication of the effective date 
contained in the Final Designation Notice designating an entity as a 
covered company posing a national security threat. A requirement that 
USF recipients certify that they are in compliance with the 
Commission's rule will take effect following revision of each 
information collection as described in the Order, including approval by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act. For E-Rate and Rural Health Care Recipients, the rule the 
Commission adopts will apply to all funding years that start after the 
designation of a covered company. The Commission's rule extends to 
existing contracts to acquire equipment or services from any covered 
company that were negotiated and entered into prior to the final 
designation of that entity as a covered company. In other words, 
existing multiyear contracts to acquire equipment or services from a 
covered company will not be exempt from the rule.
    125. Compliance Certifications. The Order establishes that the 
Commission should require recipients of universal service support to 
provide a certification that they have complied with the adopted rule, 
and directs WCB, in coordination with USAC, to revise the relevant 
information collections for each of the four USF programs to implement 
a certification attesting to compliance with the adopted rule.
    126. Audits and Recovery of Funds. The Order directs USAC to 
implement audit procedures for each USF program consistent with the 
adopted rule. USF recipients must be able to affirmatively demonstrate 
that no universal service funds were used to purchase, obtain, 
maintain, improve, modify, or otherwise support any equipment or 
services provided or manufactured by covered companies. The Order notes 
that applicants in the E-rate and Rural Health Care programs already 
retain and provide information either during the application process or 
during audit and program integrity assurance processes that could 
demonstrate (if verified) that no USF funds were improperly used. And 
many ETCs receiving High Cost funding now report the projects they 
complete using federal funds to the High Cost Universal Broadband 
portal, allowing relatively swift verification by USAC of compliance. 
To the extent that other ETCs do not yet report information to USAC 
that would verify compliance, the Commission directs WCB and USAC to 
revise its information collection and audit procedures to ensure the 
reporting of USF expenditures in a manner that will allow efficient 
oversight and thorough compliance. The Order does not depart from the 
requirement that directs USAC to pursue recovery actions against the 
party or parties that committed the rule or statutory violation in 
question, recognizing that, in some instances, this could be the 
applicant school, library, health care provider, or consortium, rather 
than the service provider.
    127. Information Collection. The Information Collection Order 
directs WCB and OEA, in coordination with USAC, to conduct an 
information collection to determine the extent to which potentially 
prohibited equipment exists in current networks and the costs 
associated with removing such equipment and replacing it with 
equivalent equipment. Specifically, the information collection will 
seek information from ETCs on the potential costs associated with the 
complete removal and replacement of any equipment and services produced 
or

[[Page 248]]

provided by Huawei and ZTE. Specifically, the Commission seeks 
information on all equipment and services from Huawei and ZTE that are 
used or owned by ETCs. ETCs are the subject of the Commission's 
proposed rule (and among USF recipients the most likely to currently 
own and use equipment and services from Huawei and ZTE). The Commission 
therefore limits its information collection only to ETCs and will not 
require cost information from other USF recipients at this time. The 
Commission nonetheless will allow service providers that are not ETCs 
to participate on a voluntary basis should they have ETC designation 
petitions pending (or may intend to file such in the future). And the 
Commission will allow other USF recipients who are not ETCs to 
participate on a voluntary basis as well.
    128. In implementing the information collection, WCB and OEA should 
gather information from ETCs as to whether they own equipment or 
services from Huawei or ZTE, what that equipment is and what those 
services are, the cost to purchase and/or install such equipment or 
services, and the cost to remove and replace such equipment or 
services. ETCs must demonstrate how they arrived at any cost estimates 
they provide in response to the information collection. All submissions 
must be certified to ensure the accuracy of the responses. The 
information collection shall be mandatory for all ETCs and voluntary 
for others. The information collection applies to all subsidiaries and 
affiliates of ETCs. The Information Collection Order directs WCB to 
consider the potential confidentiality of any information submitted, 
particularly where public release of such information could raise 
security concerns (e.g., granular location information). The Commission 
expects, however, that the public interest in knowing whether a carrier 
uses equipment or services from Huawei or ZTE would significantly 
outweigh any interest the carrier would have in keeping such 
information confidential. As part of the information collection, the 
Commission directs WCB and OEA to seek any information necessary to 
verify responses provided by ETCs to the information collection, 
including by requiring further information from respondents. The 
Commission directs WCB and OEA to proceed expeditiously with the 
information collection, including by seeking emergency PRA approval 
from OMB, if necessary and appropriate.
    129. The RFA requires an agency to describe the steps the agency 
has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities 
of the final rule, consistent with the stated objectives of the 
applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and 
legal reasons in support of the final rule, and why any significant 
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency and which affect the 
impact on small entities were rejected.
    130. The scope of the rule adopted in the Order is carefully 
limited so as to lessen its impact on small entities. Because the rule 
is prospective in effect, it does not prohibit the use of existing 
services or equipment already deployed or in use. USF recipients may 
continue to use equipment or services provided or produced by covered 
companies obtained prior to the issuance of the rule, although they may 
not use USF funds to purchase, obtain, maintain, improve, modify, or 
otherwise support such equipment or services in any way. Recipients may 
also continue to use their own funds to upgrade and maintain such 
equipment, so long as they do not use USF funds to do so. The Order 
also permits USF recipients to seek a waiver of the requirements. In 
these ways, the Order seeks to minimize the economic burden of these 
rules on small entities.
    131. Effective Date. The rules adopted herein and the initial 
designations of Huawei and ZTE as covered companies shall be effective 
immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.
    132. While a rule ordinarily will take effect 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register, the Commission finds here that 
good cause exists to expedite the implementation of these rules and to 
make them effective upon publication in the Federal Register. In 
finding that good cause exists, the Commission applies the test 
articulated by the D.C. Circuit in Omnipoint Corporation v. FCC, which 
requires an agency to ``balance the necessity for immediate 
implementation against principles of fundamental fairness which require 
that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to 
prepare for the effective date of its ruling.''
    133. The Commission first examines the necessity for immediate 
implementation. The record before the Commission establishes that the 
nature of today's communications networks is such that untrusted 
participants in the supply chain pose a serious and immediate risk to 
the integrity and proper functioning of these networks. In addition, 
expediting the Commission's process for analyzing such risks serves to 
minimize the scope of exposure of USF recipients to the significant 
flaws in their networks from future installation of equipment that may 
compromise the security of these networks, and any resulting need to 
replace such equipment. Against this critical national security concern 
the Commission balances the concerns of fairness to affected parties--
including whether dispensing with the 30-day waiting period will 
deprive affected parties of ``a reasonable time to adjust their 
behavior before the final rule takes effect.'' Here, the Commission 
notes that the principal effect of the rules adopted in the Report and 
Order--restriction on the spending of USF to certain suppliers 
designated as a threat to national security--will not take effect until 
an entity is actually designated as a threat to national security under 
the proposed rules. Thus, no entity will be designated until--at the 
earliest--31 days after the effective date of the Report and Order. In 
other words, making these rules effective immediately upon publication 
in the Federal Register will not inhibit any party's ability to 
``prepare for [their] effective date'' because the rules the Commission 
adopts in this document does not include any requirements with which 
USF recipients must immediately comply.
    134. While the Commission has adopted initial designations of 
Huawei and ZTE as covered companies, use of USF support to procure or 
otherwise support equipment or services produced or provided by these 
two companies has not and will not be disallowed until such time as 
PSHSB issues a public notice announcing its final determination and the 
effective date of any potential final designation of one or both of 
these companies. To the extent that accelerating the effective date 
requires these companies to respond more quickly to their initial 
designation, the Commission will provide copies of the Report and Order 
to both parties or their U.S. agents or affiliates immediately after 
release. The Commission has recognized that a finding of good cause 
under section 553(d)(3) can be further supported where ``the Commission 
is serving those entities by overnight mail.''
    135. Even were the rules the Commission adopts in this document to 
have an immediate impact on USF recipients, it does not believe it 
would affect the Commission's findings here. Many service providers 
have already made the business decision to purchase equipment from 
alternative vendors in order to avoid security risks. Given this, and 
the industry's long-standing knowledge of the risks posed by the 
installation and purchase of such equipment, the Commission believes 
that the impact of an immediate effective date would be minimal.

[[Page 249]]

    136. In this case, given the critical security concerns at issue, 
and the fact that an expedited schedule will not impede the ability of 
interested parties to prepare for the implementation of the rules the 
Commission adopts in this document, it finds that good cause exists, in 
accordance with the balancing test articulated by the Court in 
Omnipoint, to expedite the implementation of these rules and to make 
them effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.
    137. Ex Parte Presentations. This proceeding shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

V. Ordering Clauses

    138. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to in sections 1-4, 
201(b), 229 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and 
section 105 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 
47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201(b), 229, 254, 1004, that the Report and Order is 
adopted.
    139. It is further ordered that Part 54 of the Commission's rules 
is amended as set forth in the following.
    140. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.4(b)(1) 
and 1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.103(a), the 
Report and Order shall be effective immediately upon publication of the 
Report and Order in the Federal Register.
    141. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.4(b)(1) 
and 1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.103(a), the 
initial designations adopted in this order shall be effective 
immediately upon publication of the Report and Order in the Federal 
Register.
    142. It is further ordered, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201(b) and 
254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 
201(b), 254, that the Information Collection Order is adopted. 
Information collection pursuant to the Order shall be effective 
immediately upon OMB approval.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54

    Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and 
children, internet, Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Schools, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 part 54 as follows:

PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE

0
1. The authority citation for part 54 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 
229, 254, 303(r), 403, 1004, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Add Sec.  54.9 to subpart A to read as follows:


Sec.  54.9  Prohibition on use of funds.

    (a) USF support restriction No universal service support may be 
used to purchase, obtain, maintain, improve, modify, or otherwise 
support any equipment or services produced or provided by any company 
posing a national security threat to the integrity of communications 
networks or the communications supply chain.
    (b) Designation of Entities Subject to Prohibition. (1) When the 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) determines, either 
sua sponte or in response to a petition from an outside party, that a 
company poses a national security threat to the integrity of 
communications networks or the communications supply chain, PSHSB shall 
issue a public notice advising that such designation has been proposed 
as well as the basis for such designation.
    (2) Upon issuance of such notice, interested parties may file 
comments responding to the initial designation, including proffering an 
opposition to the initial designation. If the initial designation is 
unopposed, the entity shall be deemed to pose a national security 
threat 31 days after the issuance of the notice. If any party opposes 
the initial designation, the designation shall take effect only if 
PSHSB determines that the affected entity should nevertheless be 
designated as a national security threat to the integrity of 
communications networks or the communications supply chain. In either 
case, PSHSB shall issue a second public notice announcing its final 
designation and the effective date of its final designation. PSHSB 
shall make a final designation no later than 120 days after release of 
its initial determination notice. PSHSB may, however, extend such 120-
day deadline for good cause.
    (3) PSHSB will act to reverse its designation upon a finding that 
an entity is no longer a threat to the integrity of communications 
networks or the communications supply chain. A designated company, or 
any other interested party, may submit a petition asking PSHSB to 
remove a designation. PSHSB shall seek the input of Executive Branch 
agencies and the public upon receipt of such a petition. If the record 
shows that a designated company is no longer a national security 
threat, PSHSB shall promptly issue an order reversing its designation 
of that company. PSHSB may dismiss repetitive or frivolous petitions 
for reversal of a designation without notice and comment. If PSHSB 
reverses its designation, PSHSB shall issue an order announcing its 
decision along with the basis for its decision.
    (4) PSHSB shall have discretion to revise this process or follow a 
different process if appropriate to the circumstances, consistent with 
providing affected parties an opportunity to respond and with any

[[Page 250]]

need to act expeditiously in individual cases.

[FR Doc. 2019-27610 Filed 1-2-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P