Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Action: Proposed rule
Citation: 91 FR (No. 68) · FR Doc. 2026-06863 · GN Docket No. 19-309; FCC 26-18; FR ID 339027 · 2 CFR 47, 6001

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.

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 https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-18A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 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 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 https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings. 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 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, 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 entities within a regulated industry where applicable) NAICS code SBA size standard Total firms Total small firms % Small firms Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing 334210 1,250 employees 155 136 87.74 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equip Manufacturing 334220 1,250 employees 155 136 87.74 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing 334290 800 employees 310 294 94.84 Software Publishers 513210 $47 million 16,824 12,148 72.21 Wired Telecommunications Carriers 517111 1,500 employees 3,403 3,027 88.95 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) 517112 1,500 employees 1,184 1,081 91.30 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 Services 541511 $34 million 63,144 46,196 73.16 Information Technology Value Added Resellers (Exception) 541519 150 employees 11,570 8,182 70.72 Other Computer Related Services (Except Information Technology Value Added Resellers) 541519 $34 million 11,570 8,152 70.46 Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services 541611 $24.5 million 10,1761 69,836 68.63 Marketing Consulting Services 541613 $19 million 50,507 34,127 67.57 Other Management Consulting Services 541618 $19 million 10,446 6,383 61.10 Schools 611110 $20 million 14,088 14,087 99.99 Offices of Physicians Except Mental Health Specialists 621111 $16 million 138,120 104,486 75.65 Offices of Physicians—Mental Health Specialists 621112 $13.5 million 11,973 8,376 69.96 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 Practitioners Except Physicians 621330 $9 million 39,395 30,210 76.68 Offices of Physical Occupational & Speech Therapists & Audiologists 621340 $12.5 million 31,682 25,139 79.35 Offices of Podiatrists 621391 $9 million 6,546 5,737 87.64 Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners 621399 $10 million 29,775 18,206 61.15 Family Planning Centers 621410 $19 million 1,671 1,238 74.09 Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers 621420 $19 million 9,647 6,837 70.87 HMO Medical Centers 621491 $44.5 million 56 25 44.64 Kidney Dialysis Centers 621492 $47 million 516 367 71.12 Freestanding Ambulatory Surgical and Emergency Centers 621493 $19 million 6,092 4,544 74.59 All Other Outpatient Care Centers 621498 $25.5 million 8,942 7,160 80.07 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 Ambulatory Health Care Services 621999 $20.5 million 7,270 5,794 79.70 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 622110 $47 million 2,280 501 21.97 Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals 622210 $47 million 403 134 33.25 Specialty Hospitals—Except Psychiatric and Substance Abuse 622310 $47 million 280 92 32.86 Emergency and Other Relief Services 624230 $41.5 million 714 514 71.99 Table 2—Telecommunications Service Provider Data 2024 Universal service monitoring report telecommunications service provider data (data as of December 2023) Affected entity SBA size standard (1,500 employees) Total number FCC form 499A filers Small firms % Small entities Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs) 1,175 917 78.04 Interexchange Carriers (IXCs) 113 95 84.07 Local Resellers 222 217 97.75 Operator Service Providers (OSPs) 22 22 100 Paging & Messaging 59 59 100.00 Toll Resellers 411 398 96.84 Telecommunications Resellers 633 615 97.16 Wired Telecommunications Carriers 4,682 4,276 91.33 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) 585 498 85.13 Wireless Telephony 326 247 75.77 Table 3—E-Rate Funding Data Affected entity Number receiving E-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 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]