Cybersecurity Policy Report, Refusal to Allow ‘Rip-and-Replace’ Inspections Leads to Fine, (May 26, 2026)
By Lynn Stanton
The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has proposed a $14,000 penalty against Stealth Communications Services LLC “for apparently failing to permit two compliance inspections in violation of the requirements of the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program” (STCNRP), also known as the “rip-and-replace” program.
Under STCNRP, communications providers can seek reimbursement for the costs of removing, replacing, and disposing of equipment or services deemed to present an unacceptable national security risk.
“Participants in the Program, such as Stealth, are subject to audits, inspections, and investigations to evaluate their compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the Program. Program participants must permit any representative appointed by the Commission to enter their premises to conduct compliance inspections. Stealth refused the Commission access to conduct compliance inspections at two of the Company’s equipment premises. Such conduct obstructs the Commission’s ability to ensure the Company’s compliance with Program requirements and hinders the Commission’s mandate to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the Reimbursement Program,” the bureau said, FCC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, File No. EB-FD-26-00040466.
Stealth, a limited liability company providing commercial broadband services in New York, used covered equipment in its fiber network and was accepted into the STCNRP in July 2022, the bureau said.
“On November 18, 2025, the Commission sent the Fund Administrator to conduct scheduled on-site compliance inspections of six premises where Stealth either still had or previously had covered equipment, subject to the requirements of the Reimbursement Program. Stealth permitted access to four of the premises for compliance inspections, but refused to allow access to two of the premises. According to written submissions filed by the Company, the sites where Stealth denied access to the inspectors collectively held 67 pieces of covered equipment and 81 pieces of replacement equipment,” the bureau recounted.
Stealth’s explanation for the refusal was redacted from the public version of the NAL. However, the bureau said, “The Company’s assertions do not mitigate the forfeiture nor absolve the Company’s failure to comply with section 1.50004(o) of the Commission’s rules. As an initial matter, the Company did not offer evidence to support its statements, and the Bureau has not otherwise been able to confirm the information Stealth provided. Further, Stealth had an obligation to allow inspections from the time it first applied to the Program. Once compliance inspections were set, the Company was obligated to provide the Commission access notwithstanding other factors. Even if the Company permits access in the future, its actions would not nullify the violations at issue. Notably, the Company knew when the compliance inspections were scheduled, which gave it time to address its claimed access issues by [REDACTED].”
The bureau applied “the base forfeiture of $7,000 for failure to permit a compliance inspection at each of the two premises at issue. In applying the applicable factors, we consider whether there is any basis for an upward or a downward adjustment of the proposed forfeiture. After considering the facts here, we find that none of the upward or downward adjustment factors apply in this instance.”
Stealth has 30 days to pay the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or file a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
News: FederalLegislation LitigationEnforcement DataSecurity