[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 277-285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27646]



[[Page 277]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket No. 18-89; FCC 19-121; FRS 16316]


Protecting Against National Security Threats to the 
Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) seeks comment on actions to address national security 
threats to networks funded by the Universal Service Fund (USF or the 
Fund). The Commission concurrently adopted a Report and Order 
addressing the use of USF support 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.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 3, 2020, and reply 
comments are due on or before March 3, 2020. If you anticipate that you 
will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the 
period of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact 
listed in the following as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of 
this document. Comments and reply 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).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     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.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    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. The Commission also strongly encourages 
parties to track the organization set forth in the Further Notice in 
order to facilitate its internal review process.
    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).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact William Layton, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 418-
0868.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice in WC Docket No. 18-89, 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. It is available on the Commission's website 
at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-121A1.pdf. The Report 
and Order and Order that was adopted concurrently with this Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) is published elsewhere 
in the Federal Register.

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 protect 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. 
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 Universal Service Fund are not used in a 
way that undermines or poses a threat to our national security. 
Specifically, in the concurrently adopted 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 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 
Technologies Company (Huawei) and ZTE Corporation (ZTE) as covered 
companies for purposes of this rule and establish a process for 
designating additional covered companies in the future.
    3. The Commission seeks comment on additional actions to address 
national security threats to USF-funded networks. These include a 
proposal to require USF recipients that are eligible telecommunications 
carriers (ETCs) to remove and replace existing equipment and services 
produced or provided by covered companies. Additionally, the Commission 
adopts an information collection to help determine the extent to which 
equipment and services produced or provided by covered

[[Page 278]]

companies exist in our communications networks.
    4. Given the Commission's oversight of the USF programs that fund 
voice and broadband networks and services and its 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 
it takes in this document are consistent with this role, that they must 
do all it can within the confines of its legal authority to address 
national security threats, and that the Commission's actions, along 
with those taken by other Executive Branch agencies, will go far in 
securing our nation's critical telecommunications infrastructure.

II. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    5. The concurrently adopted Report and Order marks an important 
step towards securing our nation's telecommunications networks and 
supply chains from national security threats. At the same time, the 
Commission recognizes that further steps are needed to secure our 
communications networks. As such, the Commission proposes to require as 
a condition on the receipt of any USF support that ETCs not use or 
agree to not use within a designated period of time, communications 
equipment or services from covered companies. In addition to 
conditioning future USF support, the Commission proposes to require 
ETCs receiving USF support to remove and replace covered equipment and 
services from their network operations. To mitigate the impact on 
affected entities, and in particular small, rural entities, the 
Commission proposes to establish a reimbursement program to offset 
reasonable transition costs. The Commission proposes to make the 
requirement to remove covered equipment and services by ETCs contingent 
on the availability of a funded reimbursement program. The Commission 
appreciates that many small and rural carriers affected by the Report 
and Order are already committed to securing the integrity of their 
networks, and the Commission expects these proposals would facilitate 
the transition of their equipment and services to safer and more secure 
alternatives and seek comment on these proposals.
    6. The Commission believes sections 201(b) and 254 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C. 201(b), 
254(b), provides legal authority for these proposals. Section 201(b) 
authorizes the Commission to ``prescribe such rules as may be necessary 
in the public interest to carry out the provisions of the Act.'' 
Section 254(b) further requires the Commission to base its universal 
service policies on the principles of providing ``[q]uality services . 
. . at just, reasonable, and affordable rates,'' as well as promoting 
``[a]ccess to advanced telecommunications and information services . . 
. in all regions of the Nation.'' As the Tenth Circuit has explained, 
``nothing in the statute limits the FCC's authority to place conditions 
. . . on the use of USF funds'' that advance the purposes of the 
universal service programs.
    7. Ensuring the safety, reliability, and security of the nation's 
communications networks is vital not only to fulfilling the purpose of 
the Act but to furthering the public interest and the provision of 
quality services nationwide. The continued use of equipment or services 
produced or provided by an entity that poses a national security threat 
runs counter to these objectives and threatens the safety, reliability, 
and security of the nation's critical infrastructure. Conditioning 
receipt of future USF funding on not using covered equipment and 
services and requiring the removal and replacement of covered equipment 
and services will incentivize ETCs to eliminate the security 
shortcomings potentially present in their current operations.
    8. The Commission also believes these proposals are consistent with 
Congress's direction, under the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 NDAA), Sec. 889(b)(2), 132 Stat. at 1917, to 
``prioritize available funding and technical support to assist affected 
. . . entities to transition from covered communications equipment [as 
defined by the statute], and to ensure that communications service to 
users and customers is sustained.'' Section 889(b)(1) read in 
conjunction with section 889(b)(2) further evidences the intent of 
Congress to limit the use of Federal funding for the acquisition of 
covered equipment and services by funding recipients and to incentivize 
the replacement of covered equipment. The Commission recognizes the USF 
program is not a loan or grant program per se but interpret Congress as 
intending section 889(b)(1) read in conjunction with section 889(b)(2) 
as more broadly covering programs like USF that issue funding 
commitments. Failing to include USF, with annual expenditures of about 
$8.3 billion for the acquisition and use of communications equipment 
and services, would seriously undermine the purpose of section 889 of 
the 2019 NDAA. Section 889(b)(2) specifically directs executive 
agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission, to 
prioritize available funding and technical support to assist ``as is 
reasonably necessary'' businesses, institutions and organizations in 
transitioning from covered to replacement equipment as a result of the 
implementation of the prohibition on covered equipment as set forth in 
section 889(b)(1). The relevant legislative history ``stress[es] the 
importance of assisting rural communications service providers, anchor 
institutions, and public safety organizations in replacing covered 
equipment and associated support services contracts as soon as 
practicable.''
    9. The Commission tentatively concludes that these statutory 
provisions collectively support the rules proposed herein and seek 
comment on this position. The Commission also believes they are 
consistent with Congress's purpose in creating the agency, in part, for 
``the national defense'' as stated in Section 1 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 
151. The Commission further asks commenters to identify additional, 
alternative sources of statutory authority that would support these 
proposals.
    10. Covered Companies. The Commission proposes to have the removal 
and replacement requirement apply to the equipment and services 
produced or provided by companies designated by the Commission as 
posing a national security threat pursuant to the process identified in 
the concurrently adopted Report and Order. The Commission seeks comment 
on this proposal. The Commission also seeks comment on potential 
alternatives.
    11. USF Recipients Subject to Requirement and Reimbursement 
Eligibility. The Commission proposes to limit the removal and 
replacement requirement to ETCs. The covered companies initially 
designated in the Report and Order, Huawei and ZTE, supply equipment 
and services for fixed and mobile communications networks, cloud-based 
network solutions, and consumer devices, including Wi-Fi routers, data 
cards, and smartphones. While these products and services are not 
limited to use by ETCs, the Commission finds, given its legal authority 
is tied to the Commission's administration of the USF, the potential 
replacement burden and available reimbursement funding needed, and the 
evidence in the record that the primary USF recipients that currently 
rely on Huawei and ZTE are ETCs, that the

[[Page 279]]

Commission should focus on the networks of ETCs, where there is the 
greatest concern regarding equipment and services posing a national 
security threat. Accordingly, the Commission does not propose to 
subject other USF recipients, like rural health care providers or 
schools and libraries, to the prohibition on the receipt of USF funds 
nor to the removal and replacement requirement. The Commission seeks 
comment on this approach. How should the Commission address service 
providers that are not currently ETCs? Should the Commission's proposed 
prohibition and removal and replacement requirements apply to those 
carriers that are designated ETCs in the future? If so, how? And should 
the Commission allow otherwise qualifying carriers to become ETCs for 
the sole purpose of participating in any removal and replacement fund? 
Would such ETC designation be necessary if, for example, Congress 
appropriated funds for a reimbursement program that was not tied to the 
Fund?
    12. The Commission proposes making entities subject to the 
prohibition and removal requirement eligible for any replacement cost 
reimbursement program. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether other ``businesses, institutions, and organizations'' affected 
by section 889(b)(1)'s prohibitions should also be able to seek 
available funding or technical assistance from the Commission, even if 
they do not participate in any of the four universal service programs. 
Section 889(b)(1) states that executive agencies may not ``obligate or 
expend loan or grant funds to procure or obtain, extend or renew a 
contract to procure or obtain, or enter into a contract (or extend or 
renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or 
systems'' ``that use[ ] covered telecommunications equipment or 
services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as 
critical technology as part of any system.'' In particular, the 
Conference Report's note accompanying the 2019 NDAA discusses providing 
assistance to ``rural communications service providers, anchor 
institutions, and public safety organizations.'' If the Commission 
provides cost reimbursement through a USF mechanism and include 
entities that are not current USF recipients, the Commission proposes 
that any new entities would need to be eligible under existing USF 
requirements, such as being willing (and eligible) to be designated an 
ETC by the relevant commission for at least one year after first 
receiving funding. (A provider must be designated as an ETC to receive 
high-cost support. Similarly, there are restrictions on eligibility of 
schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities for the E-Rate and 
Rural Health Care programs.) The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal. Are there any other limits the Commission should use for 
defining or identifying such an affected entity?
    13. The Commission believes that ETCs are the most likely to rely 
on USF-supported prohibited equipment and that the potential burden and 
available funding needed to cover all non-ETC USF recipients may be 
quite high. At the same time, the Commission recognizes that limiting 
its proposed removal and replacement requirement to ETCs runs some risk 
that non-ETC USF recipients may keep otherwise prohibited equipment in 
USF-supported networks. Recognizing the Commission's need to balance 
risks and benefits, it seeks comment on whether to expand its proposed 
removal and replacement requirement to all USF recipients, rather than 
limit it to only ETCs. That is, should the Commission expand this 
proposed requirement to any entity receiving universal service support?
    14. Or should the Commission go further and prohibit the use of 
equipment or services from covered companies in communications networks 
more broadly? The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission 
can and should prohibit any communications company from purchasing, 
obtaining, maintaining, improving, modifying, or otherwise supporting 
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, regardless of whether they 
use universal service support to do so. If so, what penalties would 
apply to non-USF recipients for non-compliance? The Commission also 
seeks comment on whether it can and should similarly expand the 
proposed removal and replacement requirement to non-USF recipients. 
What adjustments would the Commission need to make to its proposed 
requirement to implement such an expansion? For example, should the 
Commission also include such companies in a reimbursement program and 
how would this affect the burden and availability of reimbursement 
funding needed? Alternatively, should the Commission allow non-USF 
recipients to voluntarily participate in a reimbursement program, and 
if so, could it do so absent legislation? Should the Commission also 
require non-USF recipients to comply with an information collection 
similar to the one it adopts in this document for ETCs, and if so, 
could it do so absent legislation? And what would be the Commission's 
source of legal authority for applying a prohibition on covered 
equipment and services and its proposed removal and replacement 
requirement to non-USF recipients absent new congressional legislation?
    15. Would the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act 
(CALEA), 47 U.S.C. 229(a), be one potential source of such authority, 
and if so, what providers would be covered and how would the Commission 
need to adjust a prohibition on covered equipment and services and its 
proposed removal and replacement requirement to account for reliance on 
that authority? Would section 103(b)(1) of CALEA, 47 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1), 
apply--if at all--if the Commission were to expand its rules beyond the 
expenditure of federal funds? For example, in 2005, the Commission 
interpreted the scope of CALEA to also include facilities-based ISPs 
and interconnected VoIP service providers. How should the Commission 
consider these kinds of entities with respect to a prohibition on 
covered equipment and services and a removal and replacement 
requirement?
    16. Equipment and Services Requiring Removal and Replacement. In 
the concurrently adopted Report and Order, the Commission determined a 
blanket prohibition on USF funding for all equipment and services from 
covered companies posing a national security risk was easier to 
administer and would provide more regulatory certainty for USF 
recipients than a narrower prohibition aimed at specific types of 
equipment and services. The prohibition includes not only finished 
products by a covered company but also products containing specific 
components or sub-parts produced or provided by a covered company. The 
Commission proposes to use the same scope to identify equipment and 
services subject to a removal and replacement requirement. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    17. Including all equipment and services from covered companies 
creates a bright line for ETCs to make determinations for removal and 
replacement. This approach would also include equipment and services 
covered by the 2019 NDAA, which has a narrower scope, covering 
equipment and services that are either a ``substantial or essential 
component of

[[Page 280]]

any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.'' Section 
889(b)(3) of the 2019 NDAA also excludes from its definition of covered 
telecommunications equipment any equipment ``that cannot route or 
redirect user data traffic or permit visibility into any user data or 
packets that such equipment transmits or otherwise handles.'' Although 
the Commission recognizes using the 2019 NDAA definition would limit 
the replacement burden, a broader requirement increases the likelihood 
of preventing engineered, backdoor access to the network and should be 
easier for ETCs to implement and for the Commission to enforce. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal and the benefits and costs of 
a broader requirement.
    18. In the concurrently adopted Report and Order, the Commission 
prohibits the use of USF to purchase or obtain any equipment or 
services produced or provided by a covered company. As the FCC has 
recognized on multiple occasions, the Lifeline program supports 
services, not end-user equipment. However, some carriers participating 
in the Lifeline program offer free handsets to eligible consumers as 
part of their offering. Carriers' websites further indicate that some 
Lifeline ETCs offer free handsets that are manufactured by the covered 
companies. The Commission seeks comment on whether the distribution of 
such handsets to Lifeline-eligible consumers poses a risk to the 
integrity of Lifeline consumers' communications.
    19. Alternatively, if the Commission relies on the 2019 NDAA as a 
source of authority for these proposed actions, should the Commission 
then tailor the removal and replacement requirement to more closely 
adhere to the scope of equipment and services identified in the 2019 
NDAA? Would limiting replacement to the equipment and services covered 
by the 2019 NDAA affect the estimated cost in a meaningful way? In 
light of the burdens that replacing existing network equipment will 
impose on carriers receiving USF support, how should the Commission 
clearly define and identify this type of equipment in order to assist 
applicants and potential auditors in determining how to comply with the 
proposed rule? Should the Commission use or reference any definitions 
developed by the Executive Branch for purposes of federal procurement 
compliance with the 2019 NDAA? Instead, should the Commission or USAC 
develop a list of equipment and services that must be removed and 
replaced? Should the Commission specifically limit the removal and 
replacement to only covered equipment and services embedded or deployed 
in an ETC's network? To what extent should the requirement apply to the 
networks of ETC affiliates?
    20. Eligible Replacement Costs. The Commission proposes to make 
available reasonable replacement costs for the equipment and services 
produced or provided by covered companies, and it seeks comment on this 
proposal. The Commission also seeks comment on what costs associated 
with replacing such equipment and services are reasonable and what 
types of restrictions to place on equipment and service replacement 
costs in order to manage limited USF resources effectively and guard 
against waste, fraud, and abuse. How should the Commission determine 
the reasonableness of the costs to replace the covered equipment or 
services? Should USF recipients be allowed to seek reimbursement for 
technology upgrades to their networks while transitioning from covered 
equipment and services to replacement equipment and services? To best 
target available funds, should the Commission prioritize payments for 
the replacement of certain equipment and services that are identified 
as posing the greatest risk to the security of networks, and what 
categories of equipment and services should that prioritization 
include? If so, how should the Commission prioritize such funds? What 
additional administrative burdens would such prioritization require and 
what impact would it have on how quickly the Commission could remove 
all problematic equipment and services from our communications 
networks?
    21. The Commission has made significant strides towards closing the 
digital divide and encouraging the deployment of the next generation of 
equipment and services. Would the Commission's proposal require ETCs 
replacing equipment and services to replicate the functionality of that 
equipment, even if the equipment or services is outdated? Could 
requiring the replacement of aging equipment that endangers our 
national security aid the Commission's efforts to close the digital 
divide and encourage the migration to 5G technology in rural America? 
The Commission recognizes the practicality that USF recipients, such as 
wireless carriers using older technologies, like 3G equipment, may not 
be able to find functionally-equivalent equipment available in the 
marketplace. The Commission seeks comment on how to encourage both the 
goal of closing the digital divide and the need to prevent wasteful 
spending on outdated equipment while reducing the national security 
risks in our Nation's networks operated and used by ETCs.
    22. As discussed in the concurrently adopted Report and Order, some 
parties allege that they purchased equipment from covered companies 
because of significant price savings compared to equipment from other 
vendors. The Commission seeks comment on this claim and, to the extent 
it is accurate, what the Commission and the private sector can do to 
address it. Are there measures that non-covered companies can undertake 
to offer lower prices to carriers seeking to replace their insecure 
equipment? Can carriers create joint purchasing programs to reduce 
their equipment costs? To what extent are the security problems 
discussed in this proceeding related to the lack of U.S.-based 
equipment vendors? Are there U.S.-supplied alternatives or replacements 
for products from the covered companies? Finally, the Commission seeks 
comment on ways it can ensure that, going forward, ETCs obtain and rely 
on equipment only from trusted vendors.
    23. During the Commission's broadcast incentive auction, the 
Commission developed a standard to reimburse costs reasonably incurred 
by an entity in order to relocate or otherwise modify its facility, 
using a comparable facilities reimbursement standard for all eligible 
entities. The Commission's spectrum incentive auction incentivized 
incumbent broadcast television licensees to relinquish or relocate from 
their bands for the repurposing and re-licensing of the spectrum via 
auction for, among other things, commercial mobile use. As part of that 
process, the Commission established a reimbursement program to 
compensate relocated broadcasters for costs ``reasonably incurred'' in 
relocating to new channels assigned in the repacking process. In that 
proceeding, the Commission decided to not provide reimbursement for 
new, optional features that are not already present in the equipment 
being replaced, but because some stations may not have been able to 
replace older, legacy equipment in the marketplace, the Commission 
would reimburse for some equipment that includes improved 
functionality. Should the Commission adopt a similar comparability 
standard for replacement costs here? Should the Commission allow 
reimbursement for non-comparable equipment or services that are safer 
or more secure than the replaced equipment or services due to enhanced 
safety features, more robust encryption, more frequent security 
updates, and so forth? What are the cost implications of allowing 
covered

[[Page 281]]

equipment or services to be replaced with upgraded technologies and 
what limits or standards should the Commission place on these upgrades? 
Are there efficient ways to develop estimates of replacement costs that 
could provide guidance to USF recipients required to make these 
replacements? If the Commission does elect to allow USF recipients to 
upgrade their equipment and receive reimbursement, what type of showing 
should it require them to make to support their reimbursement requests 
for eligible replacement costs? The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether the Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau or USAC should be 
responsible for reviewing and acting on reimbursement requests.
    24. The Commission also seeks comment on any other issues 
surrounding the cost to comply with its proposed rule of requiring 
replacement of covered equipment and services by ETCs. For instance, 
should the Commission adopt a cut-off date for equipment and services 
eligible for reimbursement as currently being considered in the United 
States 5G Leadership Act of 2019, S. 1625, 116th Cong. (2019)? Should 
equipment and services replaced after the effective date of the 
accompanying Report and Order but before the availability of a 
reimbursement program be eligible for reimbursement? Should the 
Commission require equipment to be retired and scrapped? To provide 
good incentives for carriers in selling scrapped equipment, should the 
Commission allow them to keep some fraction, e.g., one third of the 
sale value? How should the Commission also factor in associated 
business costs, such as existing loans or sped-up depreciation? Using 
the Commission's broadcast incentive auction for comparison, lost 
revenues were not eligible for reimbursement due to a statutory 
prohibition. The Commission proposes to make lost revenues ineligible 
for reimbursement due to the difficulty in administration and seek 
comment on this approach.
    25. The Commission also seeks comment on the necessity of requiring 
replacement of certain equipment and services. Requiring such 
replacement in instances where replacement is unnecessary is a waste of 
public funds and contrary to its goals for the USF programs. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether to narrow its proposed rule to 
require that ETCs remove, but not replace, covered equipment and 
services. Are there scenarios in which replacement of removed equipment 
and services is not necessary? Are there networks in which there is 
sufficient redundancy that the removal of covered equipment and 
services need not be replaced? Are there other reasons why ETCs may not 
need to replace removed equipment and services?
    26. Available Funding. The Commission proposes to seek an 
appropriation or authorization of funds from Congress to fund its 
proposed reimbursement program and to provide support for replacing 
existing equipment and services posing a national security threat in 
USF-supported networks. Given the potential national security risks in 
leaving existing equipment in USF-funded networks, as well as Congress' 
direction to the Commission to ``ensure that communications service to 
users and customers is sustained,'' it believes Congress will want to 
play a role in providing financial resources to resolve a time-limited 
issue. For example, on May 22, 2019, Senators Cotton, Markey, Warner, 
and Wicker introduced S. 1625, the United States 5G Leadership Act of 
2019, which would establish a $700 million Supply Chain Security Trust 
Fund using auction proceeds to replace equipment or services that are 
determined by the Commission to pose a national security risk. The 
Commission seeks comment on its proposal, and on the appropriate level 
of funding the Commission should request from Congress.
    27. Alternatively, if Congress does not appropriate funding for the 
Commission, the Commission seeks comment on using USF funding to 
provide support for replacing existing equipment and services posing a 
national security threat in the networks used by USF recipients. As 
noted in the record, there are existing budgets or caps for all four 
universal service programs. Should the Commission account for 
replacement reimbursement costs from the USF under the cap or budget 
for the USF program that funded the equipment in the first place? How 
would using USF support affect the contribution factor? Should the 
Commission consider establishing a new, time-limited USF program for 
this purpose? If the Commission does not establish new USF replacement 
disbursement program, it seeks comment on whether there is a way to 
prioritize existing USF support using the existing programs. For 
instance, should the Commission consider advance funding for affected 
entities under the high cost support programs? Or, are there specific 
Commission rules that the Commission could change or waive, such as the 
E-Rate program's category two budget limits or equipment transfer rules 
for schools and libraries that may need to replace existing equipment 
or services? Within the confines of the USF program, what level of 
support is appropriate for funding these replacement costs?
    28. What are the total costs of removing and replacing equipment 
and services from covered companies as proposed? For instance, the 
Telecommunications Industry Association provides an estimate of less 
than 1,500 cell sites costing approximately $150 million plus 
installation. At the other end of the cost estimates, one declaration 
stated that it could cost $410 million for a single carrier to 
transition the equipment out of its network. The Rural Wireless 
Association (RWA) states that approximately 25% of its members have 
deployed either Huawei or ZTE in their networks, with estimated costs 
of $800 million to $1 billion in costs to replace equipment before the 
end of its lifespan and depreciation for those 12 to 13 companies. They 
also cite information from Huawei, who is an associate member of the 
RWA, that it has 40 wireless and wireline customers in the United 
States, whose additional costs beyond its membership RWA could not 
estimate. How accurate are these estimates? What other sources of 
information are available to estimate the total cost that would be 
needed for the Commission's proposed reimbursement program? 
(Separately, in the concurrently adopted Order, the Commission adopts 
an information collection to aid its inquiry).
    29. Finally, should the Commission cap the amount of funding 
available to these affected entities? If the Commission sets such a 
cap, it seeks comment on ways to prioritize the limited funding if the 
replacement funding amount sought exceeds the total available funds. 
Should the Commission separately cap the amount eligible for each 
individual funding request? Section 889(b)(2) states that the 
Commission shall ``prioritize available funding . . .'' that is 
``reasonably necessary for those affected entities to transition.'' As 
in the United States 5G Leadership Act, should the Commission limit 
eligibility for assistance based on the maximum number of customers 
that an affected entity serves? Would such a limitation ensure that the 
limited funds are properly targeted to those entities with the most 
need? How should the Commission interpret ``reasonably necessary''? 
Should the Commission require affected entities to contribute some 
portion of the funding to replace the covered equipment and services,

[[Page 282]]

i.e., what portion, if any, of an entity's replacement cost should be 
borne by the requesting entity? If so, what percentage is appropriate 
to limit waste by incentivizing cost-efficient decision-making by ETCs, 
while ensuring entities can continue to serve their customers, patrons, 
and patients?
    30. Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. As the Commission proposes 
to prohibit ETCs from using equipment and services from covered 
companies, it proposes to add a certification to existing program 
forms. USF recipients would need to certify they are complying with the 
proposed rule(s), either by certifying that they do not have covered 
equipment and services or that they are working to replace covered 
equipment and services with the funding received. The Commission 
proposes requiring a duly authorized individual from the entity under 
penalty of perjury sign the certification. Are there any concerns with 
this certification requirement? Do all USF participants have, or can 
they obtain through reasonable due diligence, sufficient insight into 
their equipment and services to make these certifications? Are there 
any other enforcement mechanisms that the Commission should consider?
    31. The Commission also proposes to require all affected entities 
that receive funding to replace equipment or services to file annual 
certifications of compliance that all support will be used for its 
intended purpose. This is consistent with section 254 of the Act, which 
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.'' The Commission proposes that the 
annual certification should be signed by a duly authorized individual 
from the company under the penalty of perjury. The Commission believes 
this proposal will protect the Universal Service Fund and any other 
potential source of funding from waste, fraud, and abuse. The 
Commission seeks comment on this and other ways to reduce the risk of 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
    32. For instance, to ensure effective use of replacement funding, 
the Commission proposes to adopt a detailed reimbursement application 
process to confirm that funding is being used only to replace covered 
equipment and services, rather than to deploy services to new areas or 
replace aging equipment or services that are not covered. This is 
similar to the process adopted in the recent spectrum incentive auction 
where the Commission required broadcasters to submit estimated 
construction plans to the Media Bureau for the reimbursement of 
relocation costs. Under the Commission's proposal, applications for 
replacement funding would need to provide details of the covered 
equipment and services being replaced, the replacement equipment and 
services, and the estimated costs of replacement. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal.
    33. The Commission believes that a detailed application process 
will verify the original costs, as well as the new replacement costs to 
ensure USF support or other funding is not wasted and used 
appropriately for comparable replacement facilities and services or 
limited upgrades, if the Commission so allows. How does the Commission 
verify the original and replacement costs to ensure that USF support or 
other funding is not wasted? What other information should the 
Commission require and how does it ensure the application process is 
simple enough that it does not discourage participation or delay 
efforts to replace equipment and services from covered companies that 
pose a national security risk? Alternatively, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether it should require affected entities to submit 
detailed requests for funding as well as detailed invoices similar to 
the process used within the E-Rate program. Would this option be more 
efficient than the detailed application process the Commission 
proposes? How does the Commission limit the burden on small entities 
while safeguarding the available funding? To prevent waste, fraud, and 
abuse, and to ensure transparency in the reimbursement program, should 
the Commission make disbursements to eligible entities public as was 
done following the broadcast incentive auction?
    34. As with the existing USF programs, the Commission proposes that 
recipients of support be subject to periodic compliance audits and 
other inquiries, including as appropriate investigations, to ensure 
compliance with the Commission's rules and orders. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal and whether such an approach is sufficient to 
encourage compliance.
    35. If a recipient violates the proposed condition upon receiving 
support or includes inappropriate costs in seeking replacement 
assistance, what steps should the Commission take in response? Are 
there any mitigating factors that should be considered when taking such 
steps? Should the Commission impose additional penalties beyond loss of 
funding and potential forfeitures under section 503 of the Act, 47 
U.S.C. 254, 503? For instance, should violators be suspended or barred 
from receiving USF support? The Commission seeks comment on how to 
align such a penalty with Congress' direction in the 2019 NDAA to 
ensure that communications services to users and customers is 
sustained.
    36. Timelines for Removing and Replacing Equipment. The Commission 
seeks comment on the timing and deadlines for replacement of covered 
equipment and services by ETCs. The Commission specifically seeks 
comment on the amount of time that may be necessary to replace covered 
equipment and services currently in communications networks with 
permissible, equivalent authorized equipment and services. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other sources of 
information that it should consider to help inform its decisions on 
replacement timing and deadlines and to understand the scope of the 
effort.
    37. Should the Commission allow ETCs to obtain support even if they 
currently use covered equipment and services so long as they agree to 
replace such equipment and services by a set deadline? This would allow 
recipients to continue to receive support going forward and thus allow 
for a transition period to come into compliance without causing a 
disruption in annual funding for much needed supported services. If so, 
the Commission proposes to set a deadline by which covered equipment 
and services must be removed as a condition of receiving support. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal. How much time should the 
Commission allow for equipment and service replacement? Does a two-year 
period provide sufficient time? Or would a longer transition period, 
such as 3 to 7 years as suggested by one commenter, be more 
appropriate? The Commission also requests comment on how a deadline 
would impact overall replacement costs.
    38. In adopting a deadline, should the Commission require all 
equipment and services to be removed by a set date, or implement a 
phased approach with different deadlines for affected ETCs to replace 
equipment and services? Recognizing the important national security 
interest in removing covered equipment and services as quickly as 
possible, if the Commission adopts a phased approach, how long would 
affected companies need to comply? Should different categories of ETCs 
be given additional time to replace covered equipment and services? For 
example, how should the size of the ETC affect the deadline?

[[Page 283]]

    39. If the Commission does adopt a phased deadline approach, it 
seeks comment on how to structure the deadlines. Should the Commission 
identify specific replacement thresholds, or prioritize replacement of 
certain equipment and services first? How would a transition with set 
thresholds to replace equipment and services impact ETCs as compared to 
a single deadline? For any proposed timeline, the Commission seeks 
comment on the impact of the timeline on reimbursement costs. How does 
the replacement cost of covered equipment and services change over 
different transition timeframes? Is it more cost-efficient to set a 
specific deadline or wait for the end of life of the deployed 
equipment? For example, the record shows support for having a 
transition period. Alternatively, what are the potential impacts on 
carriers and consumers of requiring an expedited transition period? 
Commenters, particularly small wireless carriers, argue that equipment 
may not be readily available or may only be available at a much higher 
cost. How does the Commission best model the cost differences based on 
the timing? How should the Commission factor in potential executive or 
legislative actions that could have timing and cost implications in the 
future, such as the additions of further prohibited equipment 
manufacturers in future legislation?
    40. To the extent the Commission allows ETCs to replace covered 
equipment and services pursuant to varying deadlines while still 
continuing to receive USF support, should ETCs be allowed to replace a 
certain percentage of the prohibited equipment and services in the 
first year in order to continue to receive support for replacement? 
What types of reporting from these entities would be necessary for the 
Commission to track compliance with any milestones? If there are 
reasons outside of an entity's control that delay replacement, should 
the Commission establish a mechanism for the entity to report 
noncompliance with the milestones without penalty? Should the 
Commission provide financial incentives for entities that can 
accelerate replacement faster than its milestones?
    41. Additional Issues Arising from the 2019 NDAA. Section 889(b)(2) 
of the NDAA requires the Commission to prioritize ``technical support'' 
to assist affected entities in transitioning from using covered 
equipment to new equipment without impacting communications service to 
consumers. The Commission seeks comment on what ``technical support'' 
means. Is the Commission or USAC properly suited to provide technical 
support to carriers as they eliminate covered equipment or services 
from their network? If so, what ``technical support'' should the 
Commission provide to assist affected entities in their transition? The 
Commission seeks comment on how to comply with this portion of section 
889(b)(2) of the NDAA. For instance, the Commission seeks comment on 
best practices to reduce the risk from existing equipment and services 
provided by covered entities while USF recipients transition to safer 
and more secure equipment and services. Are there ways USF recipients 
can upgrade software from a covered company to reasonably improve the 
security of and reduce threats from covered equipment or services? 
Should recipients be permitted to replace a covered company's software 
with that of a trusted third party, in a way that could mitigate the 
security risk? How would such actions reduce the risk and are there 
ways for the Commission to provide assistance in making these 
decisions?
    42. The Commission also seeks comment on how to implement the 
direction under the 2019 NDAA in light of actions taken by the 
Executive Branch since August 2018. In particular, on May 15, 2019, the 
President issued Executive Order 13873 prohibiting the acquisition, 
importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any 
information and communications technology or service by a person 
subject to United States jurisdiction, where the Department of Commerce 
has determined that the transaction is subject to the jurisdiction or 
direction of a foreign adversary and it poses certain risks to the 
national security of the United States. The next day, the Bureau of 
Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce added Huawei 
Technologies, Co. Ltd. to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) 
Entity List. The EAR Entity List is where persons, including entities, 
designated by the Bureau of Industry and Security, are identified when 
``there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and 
articulable facts, that the person has been involved, is involved, or 
poses a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities 
that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests 
of the United States.'' The Bureau of Industry and Security of the 
Department of Commerce later amended the EAR to create a 90-day 
temporary general license allowing some continued exports, reexports, 
and transfers through August 19, 2019, amended the EAR to extend a 
second time the temporary general license through November 18, 2019, 
and then subsequently extended the temporary general license a third 
time through February 16, 2020. The Secretary of Commerce will also be 
issuing regulations pursuant to this Executive Order.
    43. The Commission seeks comment on how to ensure that its actions 
are consistent and in harmony with actions by other government 
agencies. How do these Executive Branch actions affect this rulemaking? 
Are there restrictions imposed by the inclusion of companies on the 
Entity List that accelerate the need for the Commission to act?
    44. Based on presently available information, the Commission 
estimates the cost of requiring the removal and replacement of covered 
equipment and services within the next two years to be between $600 
million and $2.0 billion, i.e., adding approximately $440 million to 
$1.0 billion more to the costs of the Commission's action in the 
concurrently adopted Report and Order. This compares to Cobank's 
removal-and-replacement cost estimate of $1 billion. That estimate 
applies to rural carriers only and excludes ongoing operational costs, 
both of which the Commission's estimates includes. In making this 
estimate, the Commission adopts the assumptions of the cost benefit 
analysis of the concurrently adopted Report and Order, except it 
assumes all carriers accepting universal service support must remove 
and replace 100%, rather than only 50% to 75%, of their equipment. The 
Commission assumes that the concurrently adopted Report and Order will 
impact investment decisions starting in 2020, so the Commission would 
see replacements identical to what would occur under attrition at the 
end of both 2020 and 2021, covering 2 years or 20% of the original 
equipment, with replacement cost of the remaining 80% of the Huawei or 
ZTE asset base occurring at the end of the period. Thus, the 
Commission's cost estimate of between $600 million and $2.0 billion is 
the sum of the present value of three differences: (1) the difference 
between the two-year cost streams under attrition and under the base 
case, plus (2) the difference between the cost stream that removal and 
replacement generates over the next 8 years and the base case cost 
stream over those 8 years, plus (3) the difference between the cost 
flows with the replaced capital and the steady-state annuity under the 
base case from January 1, 2030, out to 2040. If the Commission extends 
the transition to

[[Page 284]]

seven years (instead of two), the costs will decline by $250 million to 
$590 million. While the Commission acknowledges that the benefits of 
its proposed actions are difficult to quantify, the Commission expects 
that they would outweigh the costs. The Commission seeks comment on 
this analysis and any other quantitative or qualitative information 
available on the costs and benefits of its proposals.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    45. This document contains proposed new and modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public and 
the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific 
comment on how it might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    46. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities from the policies and rules 
proposed in the Further Notice. The Commission requests written public 
comment on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the 
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided in the 
Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA).
    47. Consistent with the Commission's obligation to be responsible 
stewards of the public funds used in the USF programs and increasing 
concern about ensuring communications supply chain integrity, the 
Further Notice proposes and seeks comment on a rule conditioning 
receipt of USF support on certification by an ETC that it does not use 
covered equipment or services from companies that pose a national 
security threat to communications networks or the communications supply 
chain. The Further Notice also seeks comment on establishing a program 
for the funding of reasonable replacement costs for ETCs affected by 
the new condition on USF support.
    48. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 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. 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.
    49. Small Entities, 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 identifies here, 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 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.
    50. 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).
    51. 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.''
    52. The small entities potentially affected by the proposals herein 
include Telecommunications Service Providers, internet Service 
Providers and Vendors and Equipment Manufacturers.
    53. The Further Notice proposes a rule that conditions universal 
service support on a certification that ETCs are not using 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. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal, and its likely costs and benefits, as well as on alternative 
approaches and any other steps it should consider taking. The Further 
Notice also seeks comment on how broadly this proposed rule should 
apply, and how it should be implemented. The Commission seeks comment 
on how to enforce the proposed rule, including who should be held 
liable for the recovery of disbursed funds. The Commission also seeks 
comment on establishing a program for the funding of reasonable 
replacement costs for ETCs affected by the new condition on USF 
support. Lastly, the Commission seeks comment on whether sections 
201(b) and 254 provide legal authority for the proposed rule.
    54. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    55. In compliance with the direction to the Commission provided in 
the 2019 NDAA, the Further Notice specifically proposes to establish a 
funding mechanism to reimburse entities, particularly small and rural 
carriers, for the costs of replacing the covered equipment. The Further 
Notice also

[[Page 285]]

seeks comment on whether there are any compliance issues the Commission 
should consider, particularly for smaller carriers.
    56. The Commission expects to take into account the economic impact 
on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the 
Further Notice and this IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and 
promulgating rules in this proceeding. In addition to taking into the 
account the size of the entity in potentially establishing transition 
periods to come into compliance with the proposed condition on future 
USF support, the Commission also seeks comment on establishing a 
program for the funding of reasonable replacement costs for ETCs 
affected by the new condition on USF support, which would include small 
ETCs.
    57. Ex Parte Presentations. The proceeding this Further Notice 
initiates 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.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    58. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in section 1-4, 201(b), and 254 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201(b), 254, this Further Notice 
is adopted.

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.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communication Commission proposes to amend 47 part 54 as follows:

PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE

0
1. The authority citation for part 54 continues 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.

Subpart A--General Information

0
2. Amend Sec.  54.9 by adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  54.9   Prohibition on use of funds.

* * * * *
    (c) Upon adoption of a funded reimbursement mechanism for replacing 
such equipment or services, Eligible Telecommunications Carriers must 
certify prior to receiving a funding commitment or support that it does 
not use covered equipment or services.
    (d) For purposes of paragraph (c) of this section, covered 
equipment or services are equipment or services produced or provided by 
any company designated by the Commission as posing a national security 
threat to the integrity of communications networks or the 
communications supply chain.

[FR Doc. 2019-27646 Filed 1-2-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P