Proposed Rule2026-06863
Modernizing Suspension and Debarment Rules
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 9, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes additional safeguards to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse, including additional mandatory reporting requirements, and proposes to extend the Commission's suspension and debarment framework to additional programs. A Final Rule relating to the Commission's adoption of revised suspension and debarment rules is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 68 (Thursday, April 9, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17888-17893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-06863]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2026 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 17888]]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
2 CFR Part 6001
47 CFR Parts 54 and 64
[GN Docket No. 19-309; FCC 26-18; FR ID 339027]
Modernizing Suspension and Debarment Rules
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) proposes additional safeguards to protect against waste,
fraud, and abuse, including additional mandatory reporting
requirements, and proposes to extend the Commission's suspension and
debarment framework to additional programs. A Final Rule relating to
the Commission's adoption of revised suspension and debarment rules is
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
DATES: Comments are due on or before May 11, 2026 and reply comments
are due on or before June 8, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 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 provided in the DATES section
above. 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). You may submit comments, identified by
GN Docket No. 19-309, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class
Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> People With Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dabcb9b9efeaee9abcb9b9f4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe989d9dcbcecabe989d9dd0999188">[email protected]</span></a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Silberthau, Attorney Advisor,
Office of General Counsel, 202-418-1874, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#304051455c511e43595c52554244585145705653531e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8b8a9bda4a9e6bba1a4aaadbabca0a9bd88aeababe6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in GN Docket No. 19-309,
FCC 26-18, adopted on March 26, 2026, and released on March 27, 2026.
The complete text of this document is available for download at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-18A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-18A1.pdf</a>. Alternative formats
are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d6b6e6e383d394d6b6e6e236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f696c6c3a3f3b4f696c6c21686079">[email protected]</span></a>
or calling the Commission's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at
(202) 418-0503.
Ex Parte Presentations. The proceeding this document 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
as amended (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible/
potential impact of rule and policy proposals on small entities in the
FCC document. The IRFA is found below and in Appendix C of the
Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission
invites the general public, particularly small businesses, to comment
on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on
the Notice of
[[Page 17889]]
Proposed Rulemaking indicated on the first page of this document and
must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses
to the IRFA.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains proposed new or
modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the
general public to comment on the information collection requirements
contained in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 1189-
9, a summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be available at
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Introduction
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission)
administers several congressionally-mandated programs, such as the
Universal Service Fund (USF) and the Telecommunications Relay Services
(TRS) program, that provide significant funding to close the digital
divide and ensure that all Americans have access to communications
services. In administering these important programs, it is incumbent
upon the Commission to be a good steward of these funds, which are
ultimately paid for by the American people. We must ensure that these
limited dollars serve their intended purposes. Waste, fraud, and abuse
frustrate the Commission's goals and undermines public trust in these
programs. Bad actors who would seek to enrich themselves by siphoning
these critical resources away from connecting rural households and
businesses, schools and libraries, rural healthcare providers, low-
income households, and people with disabilities have no place in these
programs. As such, in a companion Report and Order, we adopted
additional, critical tools which will allow us to promptly and
efficiently take action to exclude or otherwise limit bad actors'
participation in these programs. These changes, which received
widespread support in the record, will align our processes with other
agencies, incorporate current fraud prevention best practices, and,
ultimately, distribute funds more responsibly.
In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to update
existing information collection mechanisms for affected programs to
include a new certification that applicable program participants have
read and complied with the rules we adopt in the Report and Order. We
also seek comment on additional safeguards to enhance accountability.
We also seek comment on whether applying the new rules to the
Commission's Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement
Program (also referred to as the Supply Chain Reimbursement Program or,
colloquially, Rip-and-Replace) to subsidize smaller carriers to remove
and replace certain equipment that poses an unacceptable risk to the
national security of the United States, as well as to any future USF or
TRS programs or National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program
(NDBEDP) or similar financial assistance programs, will improve the
sustainability of their funding for the benefit of those whom the
programs serve.
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Additional Safeguards
In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on
additional safeguards that could be added to the suspension and
debarment framework adopted by the Report and Order. Specifically, we
propose to update existing information collection mechanisms for
affected programs to include a new certification that applicable
program participants have read and complied with the rules we adopt in
the Report and Order. We expect that this proposal will help streamline
the implementation of the Guidelines and supplemental rules and
decrease the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse by prompting
participants to both familiarize themselves, and comply, with the
adopted rules and providing additional tools to remedy noncompliance.
We anticipate this approach to pose little additional burden given that
those participating in Commission programs are already responsible for
complying with the rules relating to those programs and this approach
could help increase awareness of Commission rules among entities that
might not otherwise conduct business before the Commission. We seek
comment on this proposal and the benefits or burdens it may create,
particularly as to any adjustments to alleviate any potential burden on
small entities.
We also propose adopting a mandatory disclosure requirement that
would provide the agency with additional information concerning threats
to program integrity, and other forms of waste, fraud, and abuse in our
programs. Specifically, we propose to adopt the mandatory disclosure
provision from OMB's Uniform Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance
that would require any ``applicant, recipient, or subrecipient of a
Federal award [to] promptly disclose whenever . . . it has credible
evidence of the commission of a violation of Federal criminal law
involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity
violations'' in connection with the award of Federal funds. 2 CFR
200.113. This provision would require applicants and recipients--often
the first to learn of potential waste, fraud, and abuse--to proactively
alert both the agency and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of
any such credible evidence. We propose adoption of this requirement and
propose modifications to the program certifications to require
applicants and recipients to demonstrate their compliance with the
provision when participating in our programs. We tentatively conclude
that adoption of this requirement would better ensure program
participants are actively assisting the agency in deterring and
addressing waste, fraud, and abuse in its programs, and we seek comment
on this proposal.
Finally, we also seek comment on any additional safeguards, such as
additional certifications, appointment of compliance officers in
connection with any compliance plan, or other steps that the Commission
may take to enhance its ability to promote greater accountability and
policing among persons receiving financial assistance from Commission
programs.
Additional Covered Programs
As discussed briefly above, in 2020, the Commission established the
Supply Chain Reimbursement Program (SCRP) to subsidize smaller carriers
to remove and replace certain equipment that poses an unacceptable risk
to the national security of the United States. Although reimbursements
are funded by a separate appropriation, the program is designed in part
to prohibit Universal Service Fund support from being used for
equipment and services which pose a threat to national security. Over
the past six years, the Commission has processed over 50,000 claims for
reimbursement and has approved approximately $1.3 billion in
[[Page 17890]]
disbursements to recipients. As the Suspension and Debarment NPRM
preceded the creation of the SCRP, we did not seek comment on its
inclusion as a covered program for the purposes of suspension and
debarment.
We recognize that the Secure Networks Act provided for a debarment-
like remedy in the SCRP. Specifically, ``[a]ny person or entity that
violates the Reimbursement Program rules will also be banned from
further participation in the [SCRP], and the person or entity may also
be barred from participating in other Commission programs, including
Universal Service support programs.'' We seek comment on whether we
should nonetheless extend the suspension and debarment rules we adopt
today to this program, and if so, how extension of the suspension and
debarment rules adopted in the Report and Order would support this
program-specific statutory requirement. We also seek comment on any
implementation issues, including whether there should be any program-
specific changes as to how these rules are applied in the context of
the SCRP, such as the definitions of primary and lower tier
participants for those programs or the disclosure requirements.
Future Programs
The Report and Order applies the suspension and debarment framework
to the USF programs (including High-Cost, E-Rate, Lifeline, and Rural
Health Care), TRS and NDBEDP. On occasion, the Commission establishes
new support programs--funded by similar mechanisms and designed to
mirror existing programs--including new models of High-Cost, pilot
programs to evaluate future modifications to universal service, and
modernized forms of TRS. To the extent the Commission creates new
universal service programs, including additional forms of high cost
support or additional pilot programs, or authorizes new forms of TRS or
NDBEDP in the future, we propose that any such program will be governed
by default by the suspension and debarment framework adopted in the
Report and Order. We tentatively conclude that a default application of
the suspension and debarment rules to any future USF or TRS programs or
NDBEDP or similar financial assistance programs will improve the
sustainability of their funding for the benefit of those whom the
programs serve. Given the anticipated similarities between any future
USF or TRS program and those currently in effect, we do not expect any
significant burden on program participants if the suspension and
debarment rules were also extended to these similarly-designed
programs. We further anticipate that, to the extent that modifications
for a specific program are appropriate, the Commission can consider
such customization in adopting program-specific rules. We seek comment
on this proposal.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and
rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM)
assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Commission requests written public
comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified on the
first page of the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business
Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
The rules we propose in the Further Notice seek to revise the
Commission's rules to include a certification requirement to
transactions for the four USF programs (including High-Cost programs),
the TRS program, and the NDBEDP, which are the Commission's primary
permanent nonprocurement programs, as well as to other programs
(collectively Covered Programs) to reflect that persons participating
in those programs have read and agree to comply with the rules that the
Commission adopted in its Report and Order above. The proposed
certification could increase the likelihood that those receiving
financial assistance from FCC-administered programs will be responsible
stewards of these funds.
Additionally, we propose to adopt the mandatory disclosure
provision from the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Uniform
Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance that would require applicants
and recipients to proactively alert both the agency and the Office of
the Inspector General (OIG) of any credible evidence of fraud in our
programs. We also seek comment on whether to extend the suspension and
debarment framework to the Supply Chain Reimbursement Program, as well
as to any new universal service programs or modernized forms of TRS or
NDBEDP the Commission may adopt in the future.
Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4,
218, 225, 254, 403, 616, and 620 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, section 7402, Title VII of the American Rescue Plan Act 2021,
Public Law 117-2, 135 Stat. 4 (2021), and Section 904 of Division N,
Title IX of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-
260, 134 Stat. 1182, as amended by section 60502 of Division F, Title V
of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 135
Stat. 429 (2021), 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 218, 225, 254, 403, 616, and
620.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
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. The SBA
establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to
use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses;
agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such
programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing
so.
Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups
of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. 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 34.75 million
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant
in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-
profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have
fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions''
are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships,
[[Page 17891]]
villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of
less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments
data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
The rules proposed in the FNPRM will apply to small entities in the
industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding
SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data
regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified
industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a substantial
number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional
information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in
the industries identified below.
Table 1--2022 U.S. Census Bureau Data by NAICS Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated industry (footnotes
specify potentially affected Total small % Small
entities within a regulated NAICS code SBA size standard Total firms firms firms
industry where applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone Apparatus 334210 1,250 employees......... 155 136 87.74
Manufacturing.
Radio and Television 334220 1,250 employees......... 155 136 87.74
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equip
Manufacturing.
Other Communications Equipment 334290 800 employees........... 310 294 94.84
Manufacturing.
Software Publishers............ 513210 $47 million............. 16,824 12,148 72.21
Wired Telecommunications 517111 1,500 employees......... 3,403 3,027 88.95
Carriers.
Wireless Telecommunications 517112 1,500 employees......... 1,184 1,081 91.30
Carriers (except Satellite).
Telecommunications Resellers... 517121 1,500 employees......... 955 847 88.69
Satellite Telecommunications... 517410 $44 million............. 332 195 58.73
All Other Telecommunications... 517810 $40 million............. 1,673 1,007 60.19
Libraries and Archives......... 519210 $21 million............. 2,030 1,891 93.15
Custom Computer Programming 541511 $34 million............. 63,144 46,196 73.16
Services.
Information Technology Value 541519 150 employees........... 11,570 8,182 70.72
Added Resellers (Exception).
Other Computer Related Services 541519 $34 million............. 11,570 8,152 70.46
(Except Information Technology
Value Added Resellers).
Administrative Management and 541611 $24.5 million........... 10,1761 69,836 68.63
General Management Consulting
Services.
Marketing Consulting Services.. 541613 $19 million............. 50,507 34,127 67.57
Other Management Consulting 541618 $19 million............. 10,446 6,383 61.10
Services.
Schools........................ 611110 $20 million............. 14,088 14,087 99.99
Offices of Physicians Except 621111 $16 million............. 138,120 104,486 75.65
Mental Health Specialists.
Offices of Physicians--Mental 621112 $13.5 million........... 11,973 8,376 69.96
Health Specialists.
Offices of Dentists............ 621210 $9 million.............. 121,011 105,588 87.25
Offices of Chiropractors....... 621310 $9 million.............. 38,673 30,425 78.67
Offices of Optometrists........ 621320 $9 million.............. 18,582 16,425 88.39
Offices of Mental Health 621330 $9 million.............. 39,395 30,210 76.68
Practitioners Except
Physicians.
Offices of Physical 621340 $12.5 million........... 31,682 25,139 79.35
Occupational & Speech
Therapists & Audiologists.
Offices of Podiatrists......... 621391 $9 million.............. 6,546 5,737 87.64
Offices of All Other 621399 $10 million............. 29,775 18,206 61.15
Miscellaneous Health
Practitioners.
Family Planning Centers........ 621410 $19 million............. 1,671 1,238 74.09
Outpatient Mental Health and 621420 $19 million............. 9,647 6,837 70.87
Substance Abuse Centers.
HMO Medical Centers............ 621491 $44.5 million........... 56 25 44.64
Kidney Dialysis Centers........ 621492 $47 million............. 516 367 71.12
Freestanding Ambulatory 621493 $19 million............. 6,092 4,544 74.59
Surgical and Emergency Centers.
All Other Outpatient Care 621498 $25.5 million........... 8,942 7,160 80.07
Centers.
Medical Laboratories........... 621511 $41.5 million........... 4,527 3,525 77.87
Diagnostic Imaging Centers..... 621512 $19 million............. 4,717 3,537 74.98
Home Health Care Services...... 621610 $19 million............. 27,774 20,724 74.62
Ambulance Services............. 621910 $22.5 million........... 3,002 2,436 81.15
Blood and Organ Banks.......... 621991 $40 million............. 371 258 69.54
All Other Miscellaneous 621999 $20.5 million........... 7,270 5,794 79.70
Ambulatory Health Care
Services.
General Medical and Surgical 622110 $47 million............. 2,280 501 21.97
Hospitals.
Psychiatric and Substance Abuse 622210 $47 million............. 403 134 33.25
Hospitals.
Specialty Hospitals--Except 622310 $47 million............. 280 92 32.86
Psychiatric and Substance
Abuse.
Emergency and Other Relief 624230 $41.5 million........... 714 514 71.99
Services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Telecommunications Service Provider Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 Universal service SBA size standard (1,500 employees)
monitoring report -----------------------------------------
telecommunications service
provider data (data as of Total number
December 2023) FCC form 499A Small firms % Small
------------------------------- filers entities
Affected entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incumbent Local Exchange 1,175 917 78.04
Carriers (Incumbent LECs)....
Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 113 95 84.07
Local Resellers............... 222 217 97.75
[[Page 17892]]
Operator Service Providers 22 22 100
(OSPs).......................
Paging & Messaging............ 59 59 100.00
Toll Resellers................ 411 398 96.84
Telecommunications Resellers.. 633 615 97.16
Wired Telecommunications 4,682 4,276 91.33
Carriers.....................
Wireless Telecommunications 585 498 85.13
Carriers (except Satellite)..
Wireless Telephony............ 326 247 75.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--E-Rate Funding Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number receiving E-
Affected entity Rate funding
commitments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schools............................................ 101,522
Libraries.......................................... 11,671
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping,
and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on its proposal to
establish further protections to the suspension and debarment framework
adopted by the Report and Order. We propose that applicable program
participants certify that they have read and complied with the rules
adopted in the Report and Order. To achieve this, we propose updating
the existing information collection mechanisms for affected programs.
The Commission also seeks comment on additional safeguards, including
additional certifications, appointment of compliance officers in
connection with any compliance plan, or other steps that the Commission
may take to enhance its ability to promote greater accountability and
policing among persons receiving financial assistance from Commission
programs. Specifically, we propose to adopt the mandatory disclosure
provision from the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Uniform
Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance that would require applicants
and recipients to proactively alert both the agency and the Office of
the Inspector General (OIG) of any credible evidence ``of a violation
of Federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery,
or gratuity violations'' in connection with the award of Federal funds.
We also see comment on whether to apply the recently adopted suspension
and debarment framework to the SCRP, as well as to any new universal
service programs or modernized forms of TRS or NDBEDP.
These proposals, if adopted, will help to streamline the
implementation of the Guidelines and supplemental rules, and will aid
the Commission in meeting its long-standing objective of decreasing the
potential for waste, fraud, and abuse by prompting participants to both
familiarize themselves, and comply, with the adopted rules and provide
additional tools to remedy noncompliance.
The Commission does not anticipate that the proposals set forth in
the FNPRM will create additional economic, recordkeeping, or other
compliance burdens on small entities seeking to comply with the
proposed rules, should they be adopted. We note that entities receiving
FCC financial assistance are already required to familiarize themselves
with, and comply with, Commission rules governing participation in such
programs. As a result, the proposed rules should not create additional
burdens to small and other entities. While we do not anticipate that
such entities will need to hire professionals to comply with the
proposals outlined herein, we request comments from small and other
entities that are specific to any potential burdens or costs small
entities may incur in connection with these requirements, as well as
any benefits that may be achieved.
Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is
required to include alternatives such as: ``(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.''
In developing its proposals in the FNPRM, the Commission considered
alternatives that could minimize significant economic impact on small
entities. As discussed above, we propose including a new certification
to our existing information collection methods for those entities
participating in USF programs. For example, we considered not adopting
such a requirement; however, maintaining the status quo would not meet
our objectives of streamlining both the Guidelines and supplemental
rules implementation, and would also not serve the public's interest in
decreasing the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse. Moreover, other
alternatives beyond the FNPRM's proposal could prove to be more
economically burdensome to comply with for program participants, some
of which are small entities. The certification proposal in the FNPRM
will both meet the Commission's objectives while minimizing
administrative or other compliance costs to small entities. We propose
to adopt the mandatory disclosure provision from OMB's Uniform Guidance
for Federal Financial Assistance, and seek comment on alternatives that
would ensure program participants are actively assisting the agency in
deterring and addressing waste, fraud, and abuse. As we propose to
apply the recently adopted
[[Page 17893]]
suspension and debarment framework to the Supply Chain Reimbursement
Program, as well as any new universal service programs or modernized
forms of TRS or NDBEDP, we seek comment on other alternatives to
improve the sustainability of their funding for the benefit of those
whom the programs serve.
To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact on
small entities, and to better explore options and alternatives, the
Commission seeks comments from small entities and other interested
parties on its proposal discussed in the FNPRM. We expect to more fully
consider the economic impact on small entities following our review of
comments filed in response to the FNPRM in reaching our final
conclusions and promulgating rules in this proceeding.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-06863 Filed 4-8-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 9, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.