Proposed Rule2022-02908
Affordable Connectivity Program
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
February 14, 2022
Effective
March 16, 2022
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) seeks comment on proposals for increasing awareness of and participation in the Affordable Connectivity Program and for an enhanced affordable connectivity benefit for consumers in certain high- cost areas.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 30 (Monday, February 14, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8385-8390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02908]
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 8385]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 21-450; FCC 22-2; FRS 71007]
Affordable Connectivity Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) seeks comment on proposals for increasing awareness
of and participation in the Affordable Connectivity Program and for an
enhanced affordable connectivity benefit for consumers in certain high-
cost areas.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before March 16, 2022
and reply comments on or before April 15, 2022.
ADDRESSES: All filings should refer to WC Docket No. 21-450. Comments
may be filed by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Electronic filers: You may file comments electronically by
accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings</a>.
[ssquf] Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. Parties that need to submit confidential filings
to the Commission should follow the instructions provided in the
Commission's March 31, 2020 public notice regarding the procedures for
submission of confidential materials. See FCC Provides Further
Instructions Regarding Submission of Confidential Materials, Public
Notice, DA 20-361, 35 FCC Rcd 2973 (OMD, March 31, 2000), <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-361A1_Rcd.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-361A1_Rcd.pdf</a>. All filings must
be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
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#74121717414440341217175a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="35535656000501755356561b525a43">[email protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules, 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 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 consists 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
Written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
Electronic Comment Filing System 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Wu, Attorney Advisor,
Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99fcebf0fab7eeecd9fffafab7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbbea9b2b8f5acae9bbdb8b8f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in WC Docket No. 21-450,
FCC 22-2, adopted January 14, 2022, and released January 20, 2022. The
full text of this document is available at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-2A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-2A1.pdf</a>. The Report and Order that was adopted
concurrently with this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is to be published
elsewhere in the Federal Register.
I. Introduction
1. The Commission seeks comment on aspects of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act) and proposals for
increasing awareness of and participation in the Affordable
Connectivity Program. Specifically the Commission seeks comment on
three sets of issues: (1) Structuring an outreach grant program; (2)
establishing a potential pilot program focused on increasing the
awareness and enrollment of eligible households participating in
Federal Public Housing Assistance Programs in the Affordable
Connectivity Program; and (3) implementing a mechanism for determining
the application of the enhanced benefit for those serving high-cost
areas, as to be determined by the National Telecommunications
Information Administration (NTIA).
A. Outreach Grant Program
2. Grant Program. The Affordable Connectivity Program will rely
heavily on outreach efforts to make eligible households aware of and
informed about the program. As evidenced in the record, certain
segments of eligible households that would benefit from the program
currently have low participation rates. The Infrastructure Act provides
that the Commission may conduct various outreach efforts to encourage
households to enroll in the Affordable Connectivity Program. The notice
commencing this proceeding (referred to as ACP Public Notice) sought
comment on the use of these statutorily authorized outreach tools,
including the authority to provide grants to outreach partners. See
Wireless Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on the Implementation of the
Affordable Connectivity Program, Proposed Rule, 88 FR 74036, 74056-57,
paras. 108-112 (Dec. 29, 2021) (ACP Public Notice). As further
explained in the Report and Order accompanying this Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission endeavors to use a variety
of outreach tools permitted under the
[[Page 8386]]
statute to reach eligible consumers, including but not limited to
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality. In addition to the Commission's own outreach efforts,
outreach partners also play an important role in disseminating
information about the Affordable Connectivity Program; and grant
funding would help expand these outreach efforts and improve their
effectiveness.
3. Any agency establishing a grant program must do so in strict
compliance with 2 CFR part 200 and other regulations and statutes
applicable to Federal grants. However, while the Commission typically
administers various types of financial assistance programs, it does not
have experience with the unique statutory and regulatory requirements
applicable to Federal grant programs. While the present record evinces
strong support for the establishment of a grant program to promote
awareness of and enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity Program and
identifies several potential uses of outreach funds, the structure and
implementation of such a program requires further exploration due to
the unique statutory and regulatory requirements of the Federal grant
program, which the Commission has not previously administered.
Accordingly, the Commission seeks additional comment and feedback on
structuring an outreach grant program to be managed by the Commission
in support of consumer outreach concerning the Affordable Connectivity
Program, as permitted in the Infrastructure Act.
4. Several commenters support the establishment of an outreach
grant program and offer various recommendations and relevant insights.
For instance, EducationSuperHighway cites the Internal Revenue
Service's (IRS) Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program as a
useful example that the Commission should look to as a model. Are there
other analogous Federal outreach grant programs the Commission should
consider as good models for establishing an outreach grant program
besides those already identified in the record? The Commission
especially encourages interested parties that have experience serving
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural
or Tribal areas and others who are or have been historically
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality, including State, local and Tribal governments and non-
profit community-based organizations, to identify Federal grant
programs that they have found to be helpful in those efforts.
5. The Commission seeks comment on the duration and budget for an
outreach grant funding program and proposes to create a multiple-year
outreach grant program to align with the expectation that the
Affordable Connectivity Program will extend for multiple years. Should
this multi-year program require grantees to submit new applications
periodically? Should the Commission instead consider establishing a
one-time, limited duration outreach grant program? The Commission also
seeks comment on the appropriate funding amount for a grant program.
6. As reflected in the record, commenters support the Commission
using a wide variety of outreach methods to take advantage of the
statutory tools provided in the Infrastructure Act, including the
establishment of an outreach grant program Are there particular types
of outreach activities toward which the Commission should consider
targeting outreach grant funds? Tech Goes Home emphasizes the
importance of ensuring that adequate resources are provided to local
outreach partners to prevent additional financial burdens. How much
funding might grantees need in order to execute effective outreach
efforts? The Commission seeks comment on estimated ranges of outreach
grant awards, taking into consideration the range of costs that may be
associated with outreach efforts, including those identified in the
record, and on potential per-application funding caps. The Commission
also seeks comment on types of support and outreach material the
Commission could provide to help outreach partners. Should the
Commission provide technical assistance to grantees? What would be
valuable technical assistance to grantees and how might technical
assistance evolve over the duration of the grant program
implementation?
7. The Commission next seeks comment on entities that should be
eligible for outreach grant funding. The record reflects support for
relying on non-profit organizations and trusted community organizations
as outreach partners for the Affordable Connectivity Program. AARP
recommends that preference in grant awards should be given to
organizations with established public interest credentials, preferably
non-profit organizations, that have strong ties with key communities,
including multi-cultural communities, and that grant applicants be
required to provide examples of successful past outreach initiatives.
The County of Los Angeles recommends that the Commission consider
awarding grants to local governments, including counties, cities, and
other entities, to further develop hyper-local campaigns, taking into
consideration language needs, digital literacy, social media trends,
relevant linear media, and other local factors. The Commission seeks
comment on the types of entities that should be deemed eligible to
receive potential outreach grant funding. If non-profit organizations
are eligible for funds, should eligibility be limited to non-profit
organizations with tax exempt status under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)? Should
State, local, and Tribal governments, including associated social
service agencies, school districts, libraries, public housing
authorities, State governmental entities that carry out workforce
development programs, or State agencies that are responsible for
administering or supervising adult education and literacy activities in
the State, be eligible to receive grant funds? Are there other types of
organizations that should be eligible?
8. Grantees would be required to adhere to applicable Federal
grantee regulations, including but not limited to taking all necessary
affirmative steps to assure that minority businesses, women's business
enterprises, and labor surplus area firms are used when possible. See 2
CFR 200.321(a). Should use of outreach grant funds be limited to the
named grant recipient, or should funding recipients be permitted to use
subgrantees? Would allowing subgrantees significantly complicate the
administration of an outreach grant program? Do other outreach grant
programs typically permit subgrantees? Is there evidence that the
funding of subgrantees can lead to improved, targeted outreach?
9. The Commission also seeks comment on the application process,
reporting, and other requirements for a potential outreach grant
program. Interested parties should refer to the Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Requirements, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards, 2 CFR part 200, as well as the general reporting requirements
in 2 CFR parts 25 and 170. The National Digital Inclusion Alliance
requests that the application process, reporting requirements, and
financial requirements be minimally burdensome, to the extent possible
and recommends that the Commission should ``limit barriers to
participation by small organizations that are trusted in their
communities but have limited capacity
[[Page 8387]]
to participate in large Federal grant programs. The Commission invites
commenters that have received Federal grants to address the grantee
experience, including the grant application process, their use of grant
funds, and best practices with respect to financial and reporting
requirements for grant recipients, particularly for outreach grants.
Should the application and selection process for a potential outreach
grant program be competitive? The Commission seeks comment on how the
Commission could structure an application and evaluation process to
maximize the potential reach and effectiveness of outreach grant
funding.
10. An outreach grant program should maximize the number of
eligible consumers participating in the Affordable Connectivity
Program. The Commission seeks comment on whether awarding funding to
applicants from a range of organization types and sizes (e.g.,
nationwide, regional, local, and smaller organizations) and ensuring
diversity in geographic areas and intended outreach populations will
best serve the underlying goal of increasing enrollment in the program.
To do so effectively, the Commission has a strong interest in selecting
grant applications that would target underserved populations and areas
where the funding will have the most impact on increasing awareness of
and, consequently, enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity Program.
Should special consideration be given to prior experience working with
or conducting outreach to such communities? The Commission seeks
comment on what types of information should be sought from applicants
in order to enable it to make informed decisions about the merits of
the applications, including the reach of applicant organizations and
the populations that they target. What metrics should the Commission
take into account when considering applications and selecting grantees?
11. The Commission seeks comment on establishing goals and metrics
to track the outreach grant program's performance of the goals of
promoting awareness of the Affordable Connectivity Program and
enrollment by eligible households. What metrics could track performance
towards the goal of increasing enrollment? What other measurable goals
and metrics would be appropriate for an outreach funding program? The
Commission also seeks comment on appropriate performance metrics and
milestones for potential grantees. Consistent with the statutory and
regulatory requirements of grant programs, what factors could the
Commission require grantees to track to help measure the real impact of
supported outreach activities? What steps should the Commission take to
aggregate and report the performance data received from the grantees?
What would be appropriate periods of time for reporting (e.g., annually
or semi-annually) and assessing performance (e.g., one year or three
years)?
12. Any agency establishing a grant program must do so in
compliance with 2 CFR, subtitle A, Office of Management and Budget
Guidance for Grants and Agreements, and other regulations and statutes
applicable to Federal grants. Because the Commission has not previously
implemented a grant program, however, it must adopt rules or delegate
authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Office of Managing
Director in order to ensure compliance with the government-wide
requirements applicable to grant programs, including 2 CFR parts 25,
170, 175, 180, 182, and 200. Grant programs also must comply with
requirements established in appropriations legislation. See, e.g.,
Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, 1439-1442 (Dec. 27, 2020)
limitations on conference expenses, prohibition of whistleblowing
confidentiality agreements, and restrictions on grants to entities with
unpaid Federal tax liabilities or recent felony convictions). Parties
are encouraged to comment on the Commission's implementation of those
requirements, especially in light of the objectives of the outreach
grant program.
B. Pilot Program Focused on Eligible Households Participating in
Federal Public Housing Assistance Programs
13. Under the supervision of the Department Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), city and State housing authorities administer
Federal Public Housing Assistance (FPHA) programs, such as the housing
choice voucher program (Section 8), project-based rental assistance,
and public housing, that benefit millions of Americans, including
extremely low-income families. Congress and the Commission have long
recognized the importance of connecting these households to Lifeline
communications services and, more recently, to services supported by
the Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB). The record demonstrates that
large numbers of households in public housing would benefit from the
Affordable Connectivity Program.
14. In working to expand participation in the Affordable
Connectivity Program, the Commission reaffirms the importance of
connecting FPHA beneficiaries that are eligible for the Affordable
Connectivity Program. Most of these households were eligible for the
predecessor EBB Program, but only a small share of them enrolled in the
EBB Program.\1\ Additional steps and innovative approaches are needed
to help ensure that the Affordable Connectivity Program reaches the
lowest-income Americans. To that end, the Commission seeks comment on
launching a pilot program focused on expanding ACP participation by
FPHA beneficiaries, including increasing awareness and assisting with
navigating the enrollment process. Are there other obstacles to ACP
enrollment for FPHA beneficiaries that should be addressed?
15. The Infrastructure Act requires the Commission to collaborate
with relevant Federal agencies and permits the Commission to engage in
outreach efforts to encourage eligible households to enroll in the
Affordable Connectivity Program. To this end, the Commission intends to
use a wide range of available outreach tools to increase awareness of
and participation in the Affordable Connectivity Program. The record
demonstrates that there is particular need for increased outreach to
raise awareness of and participation in the Affordable Connectivity
Program among low-income Americans who participate in the FPHA
programs. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in exploring
innovative ways that the Commission could partner with agencies that
administer the FPHA programs on outreach and enrollment for the
Affordable Connectivity Program. The Commission first seeks assistance
in identifying the specific partner agencies for these efforts. In
particular, the Commission seeks comment on the types of collaborative
cross-agency outreach that would be most effective at reaching this
population. Are there examples of cross-agency marketing and outreach
efforts that the Commission should look to as models for these efforts?
Are there other models the Commission should look to in designing and
implementing these cross-agency efforts? What sources of data should
the Commission consider to identify specific locations where such
cross-agency outreach and marketing efforts are most likely to have a
significant impact?
16. The Commission also seeks comment on ways to make outreach
through the partnerships as effective as possible by identifying and
developing specific outreach and marketing efforts to be conducted
through this pilot. Are there proven methods for communicating well
with FPHA beneficiaries? What should the scope
[[Page 8388]]
and duration of these efforts be? The Commission also seeks comment on
whether and how it can partner with third parties, including non-profit
organizations, to help identify, develop, and carry out these marketing
and outreach efforts. Should the Commission use Affordable Connectivity
Program funding designated for outreach for these efforts?
17. Heightening FPHA beneficiaries' awareness of the Affordable
Connectivity Program alone may not be enough to significantly increase
their participation in the program, and accordingly, the Commission
seeks comment on how to best assist FPHA households in accessing or
navigating the program application process. The Commission expects that
partner agencies have regular opportunities to interact in person with
members of households eligible for the Affordable Connectivity Program.
Should the Commission encourage partner agencies to establish, as part
of this pilot, assistance locations on site where eligible household
members can complete and submit applications for the Affordable
Connectivity Program? What are the benefits of such arrangements? This
effort could impose some additional burdens on the staff and resources
of partner agencies; how can the Commission reduce such burdens? Should
the Commission direct the Universal Service Administrative Company
(USAC) to give those agencies access to the National Verifier (as
defined in 47 CFR 54.1800(q)) in order to assist applicants who are
physically present with completing and submitting applications for the
Affordable Connectivity Program?
18. The Commission proposes to require any representatives that are
granted access to the National Verifier to register in the
Representative Accountability Database, consistent with 47 CFR
54.1807(a), and to indicate that they are providing such assistance
when they help consumers submit applications through the National
Verifier. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on
additional ways to help eligible FPHA households enroll. Are there
other models for providing enrollment assistance the Commission should
consider?
19. The Commission seeks comment on how to measure the success of
this pilot in increasing awareness of and enrollment in the Affordable
Connectivity Program by participants in qualifying Federal Public
Housing Assistance Programs.
C. Implementation of the Enhanced Benefit for High-Cost Areas
20. The Infrastructure Act provides for a separate enhanced
affordable connectivity benefit for households that are served by
providers in high-cost areas (as the term high-cost areas is defined in
a separate section of the Infrastructure Act), with such areas to be
identified by the National Telecommunications Information
Administration (NTIA) in consultation with the Commission. 47 U.S.C.
1752(a)(7)(B) (the ``high-cost provision''). Specifically, the
Infrastructure Act establishes that a discount of up to $75 per month
may be applied to a provider's broadband service ``upon a showing that
the applicability of the lower [$30.00 maximum benefit that applies
elsewhere] to the provision of the affordable connectivity benefit by
the provider would cause particularized economic hardship to the
provider such that the provider may not be able to maintain the
operation of part or all of its broadband network.'' 47 U.S.C.
1752(a)(7)(B). The ACP Public Notice sought comment on what the
mechanism should be, and what a provider should be required to submit
to show a ``particularized economic hardship.'' ACP Public Notice,
paras. 71-73. While the present record includes some comments on this
high-cost provision, the establishment of this mechanism requires
further exploration given the interplay with other areas of the
Infrastructure Act. including the definition of high-cost areas in 47
U.S.C. 1702(a)(2).
21. The high-cost areas provision incorporates the definition of
``high-cost area'' in 47 U.S.C. 1702(a)(2)(G)(i), as ``an unserved area
in which the cost of building out broadband service is higher, as
compared with the average cost of building out broadband service in
unserved areas in the United States,'' as determined by NTIA in
consultation with the Commission. In turn, the term unserved area is
defined as ``an area in which not less than 80 percent of broadband-
serviceable locations are unserved locations.'' 47 U.S.C.
1702(a)(2)(G)(ii). See also 47 U.S.C. 1702(a)(2)(H) (defining
``broadband-serviceable location''); 47 U.S.C. 1702(a)(1)(A) (defining
``unserved location''). The Commission seeks comment on how to
interpret and apply the definition of ``high-cost area'' in 47 U.S.C.
1702(a)(2)(G)(i) for purposes of the Affordable Connectivity Program,
including whether such high-cost areas need to be unserved or if they
can include high-cost areas that are served or unserved by an existing
broadband provider. See also 47 U.S.C. 1702(a)(2)(H) (defining
``broadband-serviceable location''); 47 U.S.C. 1702(a)(1)(A) (defining
``unserved location'').
22. The Commission seeks additional comment on the mechanism by
which a provider can show particularized economic hardship. Should the
Commission set clear standards or benchmarks for providers on what
constitutes particularized economic hardship? In their comments on the
ACP Public Notice, both NTCA and Conexon contend that a provider may
face particularized economic hardship when the expected revenue from a
substantial number of eligible households plus the high-cost universal
service support it receives and the $30 monthly affordable connectivity
benefit do not cover the cost of serving the designated high cost area,
including depreciation expense, operating expense, the cost of capital,
and other associated expenses, thus making it uneconomic to justify the
incremental private investment needed to maintain the operation of that
part of its network. Other commenters assert that commercial mobile
carriers should be able to demonstrate that one or more cell sites may
be decommissioned in the absence of a higher ACP benefit, or
alternatively, would not be decommissioned if the higher ACP benefit is
provided. The Commission seeks comment on the best method of
determining whether providers face a particularized economic hardship.
What constitutes a substantial number of eligible households? What
considerations should be used to determine a provider's expected
revenues? When a provider has a depressed take-rate, how can the
Commission determines the cause is because households in that area
cannot afford internet? How can the Commission assess the amount of
revenue that providers need to maintain the operation of networks
serving households in the designated high-cost areas? The Commission
also seeks comment on other standards and tests the Commission should
consider to make this determination.
23. The Commission also invites comment on the specific information
that providers should provide in order to show particularized economic
hardship. What information (such as revenues, cost models, capital
expenditures, etc.) should a provider be required to submit to show
that increased subsidies from the Affordable Connectivity Program are
necessary for the provider to maintain its network? Alternatively, is
there a level of poverty
[[Page 8389]]
that could be applied in all high-cost areas to determine where
carriers face particularized economic hardship? What information is
publicly available for the Commission to consider in making such a
determination? Should the Commission take into consideration other
subsidies and financial benefits used by providers in determining a
provider's request for high-cost treatment in the Affordable
Connectivity Program?
24. The ACP Public Notice sought comment on who should decide
whether the provider met the standard for this enhanced benefit and the
Commission seeks further comment on how this review process should be
implemented. What else should the Commission consider when setting up
the process for making determinations about a household's eligibility
to receive this enhanced subsidy?
25. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance
digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. See
Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved
Communities Through the Federal Government, E.O. No. 13985, 86 FR 7009
(Jan. 20, 2021). Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how
these
26. proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's
relevant legal authority.
II. Procedural Matters
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
27. This document contains proposed new information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, 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.
28. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 603, the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities of the policies and rules proposed in the
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). Written public comments
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further
Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice,
including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).
29. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. The FNPRM
seeks comment on a multi-year grant program to support the efforts of
outreach partners to inform potentially eligible households about the
Affordable Connectivity Program and encourage them to enroll in the
program, including the types of entities that could be eligible to
apply for and receive grants, potentially including non-profit
organizations, State, local, and Tribal governments, social service
agencies, school districts, and libraries. The FNPRM also proposes and
seeks comment on a pilot program focused on expanding ACP participation
by beneficiaries of Federal Public Housing Assistance (FPHA) programs
(housing choice voucher program (Section 8), project-based rental
assistance, and public housing) by increasing their awareness of the
program and helping them enroll, to be implemented in conjunction with
agencies that administer the FPHA programs. In addition, the FNPRM
seeks comment on rules to implement the enhanced affordable
connectivity benefit of up to $75.00 per month that the Infrastructure
Act provides to eligible households for broadband service offered by
participating providers in certain high-cost areas, including the
definition and identification of high-cost areas; the standards for a
participating provider's showing of particularized economic hardship,
the information it would need to submit (such as revenues, cost models,
and capital expenditures), and the process of reviewing such showings.
30. Legal Basis. The proposed actions are authorized pursuant to
the Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. V, section 60502(a)(3)(B), 47
U.S.C. 1752(a)(7)(B) and (b)(10)(C).
31. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The small entities that might be
eligible to apply for grants under the proposed outreach grant program
include approximately 49,000 small governmental jurisdictions and
572,000 small non-profit organizations, based on SBA definitions and
data from the U.S. Census Bureau and other sources. A small subset of
these entities might be eligible to seek to participate in the pilot
program focused on public housing beneficiaries. The proposed rules
concerning the enhanced affordable connectivity benefit could apply to
approximately 3,000 wired broadband internet access service providers
and 1,000 wireless broadband internet access service providers, if such
providers opted to participate in the program and seeks to offer the
enhanced benefit in high-cost areas where they can show particularized
economic hardship.
32. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. The Commission anticipates that any grant-
related rules that it adopts, following the Uniform Guidance that
applies to all Federal agencies (potentially with additional
implementation details), see 79 FR 75872 (Dec. 19, 2014), will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Providers of wireline or wireless broadband internet access
services, including small businesses, that voluntarily seek to qualify
for the enhanced benefit might need to report and retain certain data
about their operations. The precise nature of the necessary data cannot
be ascertained at this time and the cost of compliance cannot be
quantified, but any recordkeeping or reporting requirements would apply
only to those providers that voluntarily participate and opt to seek
the enhanced benefit, and the Commission believes that such providers
will likely enjoy benefits that far exceed the reporting and
recordkeeping costs.
33. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered. The rules and requirements
that the Commission ultimately adopts to implement the enhanced benefit
in high-cost areas will be explicitly designed to accommodate and
provide structure for the particularized showings of economic hardship
that all applicants, including small entities, will need to submit. The
particularized nature of each of these showings will inherently
accommodate the particular circumstances of each applicant, including
any small entity that chooses to apply for the benefit. The
[[Page 8390]]
Commission is hopeful that the comments it receives will further
address matters impacting small entities and will include information,
data and analyses relating to these matters.
34. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission's Proposals: None.
Ordering Clause
35. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in Section 904 of Division N, Title IX of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, as
amended by Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58,
135 Stat. 429 (2021), this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
adopted.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54
Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and
children, internet, Libraries, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools, Telecommunications, Telephone, Virgin Islands.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02908 Filed 2-11-22; 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 February 14, 2022.
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.