Prohibited Telecommunications Equipment •
EO on Diversity Training • Public Charge Rule

OMB Releases FAQ on Prohibited Telecommunications Equipment

Earlier this year, the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released revisions to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (the Uniform Guidance). One notable change was the addition of 2 CFR § 200.216, which implemented Section 889(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019. While this change was included as part of the scheduled review and subsequent revisions to the Uniform Guidance, it became binding on all federal awards as of August 13, 2020 under the NDAA.

Section 200.216 prohibits the use of grant funds to procure telecommunications and video surveillance equipment from Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities). Due to the lack of information on the ban, many CAAs have reached out to CAPLAW with questions about how Section 200.216 affects them.

OMB addressed some of these questions in this FAQ guidance issued at the end of November. CAAs that use covered telecommunications or video surveillance equipment should review the guidance to assist them with compliance under the ban. The guidance addresses topics such as identifying covered telecommunications equipment, amendments to existing awards, procurement from entities that use prohibited equipment, and the inclusion of covered telecommunications and video surveillance costs in the indirect cost pool. CAAs that use an indirect cost rate should review their current rate proposal or previously negotiated rate to ensure that it does not include expenses associated with covered telecommunications or video surveillance services, since such costs are now unallowable.

Update on Executive Order 13950

CAPLAW has previously discussed President Trump's September executive order prohibiting federal contractors from conducting certain workplace diversity and inclusion trainings. While the order still does not apply to federal grantees, there have been several developments, including lawsuits and class deviations, that have arisen since the rule’s release. This article from the law firm Venable discusses those developments, as well as their implications for government contractors.

Update on Public Charge Rule

On December 2, the Ninth Circuit enjoined 2018 revisions to the public charge rule from being enforced in 18 states and Washington, DC. Prior to the injunction, the revisions were in effect in all states. The 2018 revisions had expanded the public charge rule in multiple ways that could negatively impact green card and visa applicants who receive certain cash or non-cash benefits. Additional litigation, as well as further revisions by the incoming Biden administration, are anticipated. CAPLAW’s Public Charge Rule FAQ provides further information about the 2018 revisions.

This e-News Bulletin is part of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Legal Training and Technical Assistance (T/TA) Center. It was created by Community Action Program Legal Services, Inc. (CAPLAW) in the performance of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services Cooperative Agreement – Grant Award Number 90ET0482-01. Any opinion, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

The contents of this publication are intended to convey general information only and do not constitute legal advice. Any communication through this publication or through CAPLAW’s website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, please contact CAPLAW or another attorney directly.