Section 889 Roll-Out Continues with OMB Revised Guidance for Federal Grants and Agreements
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.13.20
Today, August 13, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a series of changes to the OMB Guidance for Grants and Agreements, including the addition of 2 CFR 200.216, Prohibition on certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment, which prohibits grant and loan recipients and subrecipients from using federal funds to enter into, or renew, contracts for equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system or critical technology as part of any system. This change is intended to implement the prohibition on Huawei, ZTE, and other covered telecommunications equipment and services issued in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act Section 889. OMB has added a new definition for telecommunications and video surveillance costs and has clarified that costs for telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment are allowable except for covered telecommunications equipment and services which are unallowable. Federal awarding agencies are required to prioritize funding for entities to transition from covered communications equipment and services, to procure replacement equipment and services, and to ensure the communication service to users and customers is sustained.
For additional information about recent Section 889 updates, see Crowell’s previous alerts:
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.24.25
On October 23rd, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) containing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANOPR”) with principles for all large load interconnections across the US, including those co-located with generating facilities.[1] Significantly, the Secretary of Energy states that the interconnection of large loads to the transmission system “falls squarely” within FERC’s jurisdiction, thus weighing in on a dispute that has been pending before FERC for over a year. This move appears to be a reaction to the continued pendency before FERC of the colocation dockets[2] and a technical conference on colocation held almost a year ago.[3]
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.24.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.23.25
Are You Ready for the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act? Key Changes for Businesses
Client Alert | 8 min read | 10.23.25
Ransomware on the Rise: The Expanding Role of Legal Counsel in Incident Response
