Proposed Rule2023-26033
Addressing the Homework Gap Through the E-Rate 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
December 7, 2023
Effective
January 8, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) initiates a proceeding to address the ongoing remote learning needs of today's students, school staff, and library patrons through the E-Rate program and to ensure the millions who have benefitted from the Emergency Connectivity Fund program support do not fall back onto the wrong side of the digital divide once the program ends.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 85157-85171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26033]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 21-31; FCC 23-91; FRS ID 185870]
Addressing the Homework Gap Through the E-Rate Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) initiates a proceeding to address the ongoing remote
learning needs of today's students, school staff, and library patrons
through the E-Rate program and to ensure the millions who have
benefitted from the Emergency Connectivity Fund program support do not
fall back onto the wrong side of the digital divide once the program
ends.
DATES: Comments are due on or before January 8, 2024 and reply comments
are due on or before January 22, 2024. If you anticipate that you will
be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period
of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact listed
below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments. You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No.
21-31, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. 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 at
its headquarters. 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>.
<bullet> 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#abcdc8c89e9b9febcdc8c885ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d9bfbabaece9ed99bfbabaf7beb6af">[email protected]</span></a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
<bullet> Availability of Documents: Comments, reply comments, and
ex parte submissions will be publicly available online via ECFS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Molly O'Conor <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#09646665657027666a6667667b496f6a6a276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa9795969683d4959995949588ba9c9999d49d958c">[email protected]</span></a> in
the Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau, 202-418-7400 or TTY: 202-418-0578. Requests for accommodations
should be made as soon as possible in order to allow the agency to
satisfy such requests whenever possible. Send an email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#761015154346423610151558111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="caaca9a9fffafe8aaca9a9e4ada5bc">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202) 418-0530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Addressing the Homework Gap through the E-Rate Program, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket No. 21-31; FCC 23-91, adopted
November 1, 2023 and released November 8, 2023. The full text of this
document is available for public inspection during regular business
hours at Commission's headquarters 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554
or at the following internet address: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-e-rate-support-wi-fi-hotspots">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-e-rate-support-wi-fi-hotspots</a>.
I. Introduction
1. High-speed internet is critical to educational equity, economic
opportunity, job creation, and civic engagement. Since its inception,
the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission) E-Rate program has
supported high-speed, affordable internet services to and within school
and library buildings, and has been instrumental in providing students
and library patrons with access to the essential broadband services
that are required for next-generation learning. But advances in
technology have changed the modern learning environment to increasingly
employ interactive online education tools that can be used anywhere, at
any time, allowing students to develop the digital skills needed to
prosper in the 21st Century. The ongoing proliferation of innovative
digital learning technologies and the need to connect students,
teachers, and library patrons to jobs, life-long learning, and
information have led to a steady rise in the demand for broadband
connectivity both inside and outside of school and library buildings.
In response to those needs, the Commission proposes and seeks comment
on updates to the E-Rate program to ensure the program is equipped to
support the ongoing remote learning needs of today's students, school
staff, and library patrons.
2. In recent years, the demand for connectivity beyond school and
library buildings became a crisis when the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted
operations and caused schools and libraries across the country to
temporarily close their doors. Millions of students caught in the
``Homework Gap''--i.e., students unable to fully participate in
educational opportunities because they lack broadband connectivity in
their homes--suddenly found themselves unable to participate in
education at all. Library patrons who relied on their local libraries
for remote learning opportunities and internet access suddenly
experienced a loss of these critical services when most, if not all,
library buildings closed their doors by the summer of 2020. However,
even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Homework Gap affected somewhere
between 8.5 to 16 million K-12 students, leaving 15% of U.S. households
with children ages six to seventeen lacking a high-speed internet
connection at home and approximately one in four households without
high-speed internet access. Although the E-Rate program helped
approximately 98% of the K-12 schools and districts in the country meet
the Commission's
[[Page 85158]]
connectivity goals by 2018 by providing support for broadband
connections to and within schools, and approximately 12,000 distinct
libraries from across the nation receive E-Rate support each year for
broadband connections to and within libraries, the increasing shift to
online and remote instruction highlighted the need to connect the
millions of students, school staff, and library patrons who had no at-
home broadband connectivity. To address this longstanding critical
need, Congress created the Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF), which
allowed the Commission to create the nation's first ever federal
program designed to address the Homework Gap by providing funding for
connected devices, Wi-Fi hotspot devices, broadband connections, and
other eligible equipment and services for students, school staff, and
library patrons in need for use at locations outside of their school or
library.
3. Over the past two years, the ECF program's funding of internet
access services through Wi-Fi hotspots has enabled significant progress
in expanding digital learning, addressing digital and educational
equity, and closing the Homework Gap by providing students, school
staff, and library patrons with access to broadband connections.
Schools in Oakland, California reported that they nearly closed the
Homework Gap for their students through the use of ECF-funded Wi-Fi
hotspots and internet access services. Libraries, like the Boston
Public Library, established ECF-funded Wi-Fi hotspot lending programs
to provide the hotspot equipment and monthly mobile broadband services
needed to connect thousands of their most vulnerable residents to
library resources. These are just two examples of the many ways that
schools and libraries across the nation have relied on ECF support to
fulfill the remote learning needs of their students, school staff, and
library patrons who otherwise lacked access to these resources.
4. Following three successful application filing windows and more
than two years of funding broadband services for students, school
staff, and library patrons with unmet needs, ECF funding is nearly
fully obligated, and the program will sunset on June 30, 2024. As the
Commission approaches the sunsetting of the ECF program, the Commission
has committed more than $123 million for the purchase of Wi-Fi hotspot
devices and nearly $1.3 billion for the associated services to provide
off-premises broadband connectivity to students, school staff, and
library patrons who otherwise would lack sufficient broadband access
needed to fully engage in remote learning. Building on its experience
with the ECF program, the Commission now reexamines the E-Rate program
and seeks comment on proposals and potential actions the Commission
could take to support the needs of students, school staff, and library
patrons who risk losing access to essential broadband connections
necessary to engage in educational opportunities once the ECF program
sunsets.
5. In the NPRM, the Commission initiates a proceeding to address
the ongoing remote learning needs of today's students, school staff,
and library patrons through the E-Rate program and to ensure the
millions who have benefitted from ECF program support do not fall back
onto the wrong side of the digital divide once the program ends.
Specifically, the Commission proposes to permit eligible schools and
libraries to receive E-Rate support for Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless
internet services that can be used off-premises. The Commission
proposes to find that the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and
internet services by students, school staff, and library patrons for
remote learning and the provision of virtual library services
constitutes an educational purpose as defined by the Commission and
enhances access to advanced telecommunications and information services
for schools and libraries. The Commission also seeks comment on how to
adapt the E-Rate program to reflect the virtual nature of today's
modern educational environment. Additionally, the Commission seeks
comment on the applicability of the Children`s internet Protection Act
(CIPA) requirements and the off-premises use of E-Rate-supported
hotspots and services. In considering whether to support the off-
premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and internet access services, the NPRM
seeks to balance the need to modernize the E-Rate program to support
today's technology-based learning environment with the need to ensure
the limited E-Rate funding remains available for its primary purpose of
providing connectivity to schools and libraries, and is protected from
potential waste, fraud, and abuse.
II. Discussion
6. The Commission proposes to modernize the E-Rate program in
recognition of the technologically advanced educational needs of
students, school staff, and library patrons that persist even when they
are not physically at their school or library, by making the off-
premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services eligible for E-Rate
support. Broadband access is proven to improve individuals' educational
outcomes, while lack of access has been shown to severely hamper
educational opportunities. Yet, for years, the adoption of broadband
connectivity in today's educational settings has outpaced the adoption
of broadband connectivity in the homes of students, school staff, and
library patrons throughout the country. As a result, students, school
staff, and library patrons who lack adequate access to broadband
connectivity are left further and further behind. Over the course of
the last two years, the ECF program has bridged some of the gap between
individuals with home broadband access and individuals caught on the
wrong side of the digital and educational divide. Schools and libraries
have maximized their limited ECF funding by establishing Wi-Fi hotspot
lending programs, and ensuring that as many students, school staff, and
library patrons in need as possible had access to broadband
connectivity outside of the school or library building. With ECF
support, approximately 6,800 schools, libraries, and consortia of
schools and libraries purchased Wi-Fi hotspot devices and associated
services, and were able to provide much-needed mobile broadband
connectivity through ECF-funded Wi-Fi hotspots to more than 1.1 million
students, school staff, and library patrons who otherwise lacked
internet access services sufficient to engage in remote learning. In
the NPRM, the Commission seeks to continue supporting ECF-funded
broadband connectivity and proposes to allow E-Rate support to fund the
off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services to ensure that the
students, school staff, and library patrons who lack broadband
connectivity remain supported after the ECF program sunsets. The
Commission also seeks comment on how the it can implement funding for
the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services within existing E-
Rate program processes, what actions are necessary to safeguard these
critical funds from any potential waste, fraud, or abuse, and its
authority to adopt the measures described in the NPRM.
A. Making Off-Premises Use of Wi-Fi Hotspots and Services Eligible for
E-Rate Support
7. The Commission proposes to permit schools and libraries to
receive E-Rate support for Wi-Fi hotspots and services that can be used
off-premises by students, school staff, and library patrons, finding
that these services serve a critical educational purpose and
[[Page 85159]]
enhance the ability of students, school staff, and library patrons to
access advanced telecommunications and information services. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal and, if adopted, how best to
implement the proposed measures in a manner that ensures that schools
and libraries target their students, school staff, and library patrons
who lack internet access, while simultaneously protecting limited E-
Rate funds. In particular, the Commission seeks information and data
from schools and libraries that have used Wi-Fi hotspots and services
for remote learning and/or implemented Wi-Fi hotspot lending programs
to provide service to students, school staff, and library patrons who
would otherwise lack broadband access outside of their school or
library.
1. Equipment and Service Eligibility
8. In proposing to make Wi-Fi hotspot devices eligible for E-Rate
support, the Commission seeks comment on what devices should be
covered. In the ECF program, a Wi-Fi hotspot is defined as a device
that is capable of (a) receiving advanced telecommunications and
information services; and (b) sharing such services with a connected
device through the use of Wi-Fi. For the E-Rate program, the Commission
proposes to limit eligibility to Wi-Fi hotspots receiving mobile
services and seek comment on whether this is the right approach. Are
there any devices that perform the same functions as a Wi-Fi hotspot
that are not covered by this definition and that should be included?
Conversely, is the ECF program's definition of Wi-Fi hotspot
overinclusive and could it encompass devices that go beyond the
intended purpose of meeting the remote learning needs of students,
school staff, and library patrons with unmet need? The Commission
encourages commenters to provide specific examples of any equivalent or
similar equipment and/or services, or equipment and/or services that
should be considered ineligible. Should Wi-Fi hotspots be treated as
internal connections, as the State of Colorado has argued? The
Commission notes that in defining the scope of E-Rate program
eligibility for internal connections, the Commission has previously
declined to support ``computers and other peripheral equipment''
because it found that only equipment that is an essential element in
the transmission of information is eligible (e.g., internal
connections). The Commission seeks comment on whether Wi-Fi hotspot
devices are ``peripheral equipment'' or if they serve the necessary
transmission function contemplated by the Commission to be considered
internal connections, like wireless access points.
9. Consistent with the ECF program, the Commission also proposes to
limit Wi-Fi hotspot device eligibility to Wi-Fi hotspots for individual
users. The Commission proposes to treat as ineligible multi-user
hotspot devices or smartphones. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal. Additionally, the ECF rules limited support to the purchase
of one Wi-Fi hotspot device per student, school staff member, or
library patron. Should the Commission similarly adopt a per-user
limitation in the E-Rate program or consider a per-household limit?
What should that limit be? Is an individual Wi-Fi hotspot capable of
connecting more than one user at a time without degrading the quality
of the connectivity or compromising connectivity altogether? In
considering whether to impose some limit, the Commission seeks to
balance the goals of administrative ease, such as implementing a simple
one-per-household limit, with the needs of all households, including
multi-student households. Some sources state that Wi-Fi hotspot devices
have a useful life of three to five years. In commenters' experience,
is this the typical length of the useful life of Wi-Fi hotspots? If the
Commission funds Wi-Fi hotspots, should the Commission limit their
eligibility to purchases made once every three years or adopt some
other eligibility timeframe? The Commission seeks comment on these
questions and request that commenters provide any available supporting
data.
10. With respect to wireless internet access services, the
Commission proposes to limit the use of services to those that can be
supported by and delivered with Wi-Fi hotspots provided to an
individual user (as opposed to multi-user hotspots). Pursuant to this
proposal, schools and libraries would be able to seek E-Rate support
for commercially available internet access services (e.g., a data plan)
that will be used on any individual user Wi-Fi hotspot, including E-
Rate- or ECF-funded hotspots, previously purchased hotspots, and/or
student-, staff member-, or patron-owned hotspots. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal. The Commission also seeks comment on the
quality of internet access services that should be eligible for support
through the E-Rate program. For example, should the Commission adopt
minimum service standards? The Commission invites input on the level of
service that is needed to support remote learning, based on the direct
experiences of providing Wi-Fi hotspots to students, school staff, and
library patrons during the pandemic. Should the Commission limit
support to just the off-premises use of the recurring internet access
services needed for remote learning (and not the Wi-Fi hotspot
equipment)? The Commission expects this limitation could allow schools
and libraries with existing Wi-Fi hotspot lending programs to continue
to lend or check-out a portable Wi-Fi hotspot device with a mobile
broadband connection to students, school staff, or library patrons for
off-premises access to the internet. If the Commission decides not to
make Wi-Fi hotspot devices eligible, how should the Commission address
Wi-Fi hotspot devices that are bundled with services? Are there
benefits or disadvantages if the Commission limits E-Rate support to
only services, and does not include Wi-Fi hotspot devices as eligible
for support? Should the Commission limit eligibility to the services
associated with the Wi-Fi hotspots purchased using ECF program funds?
Would this limitation help to ensure E-Rate support is directed to
students, school staff, and library patrons who are expected to lose
their connectivity when the ECF program sunsets? Are there other issues
or concerns the Commission should consider when determining how to fund
Wi-Fi hotspot devices and/or services? For example, how should leased
or bundled equipment and service packages offered by providers be
treated and should they be eligible for E-Rate support? The Commission
seeks comment on these questions.
2. Cost-Effective Purchases
11. Next, the Commission seeks comment on how to ensure schools and
libraries purchase the most cost-effective service offering(s) when
selecting Wi-Fi hotspots and services for students, school staff, and
library patrons who lack access to broadband. Are the requirements to
pay the non-discounted share of costs and conduct competitive bidding
sufficient incentives to prevent wasteful spending? The Commission also
seeks comment on the anticipated costs of the Wi-Fi hotspots and
services if provided on a program-wide basis. The Commission encourages
schools, libraries, and other stakeholders to provide in their comments
specific information about the devices and services purchased through
the ECF program or with other funding, the costs, the device and
service parameters, any steps they have taken to ensure the sufficiency
of the service, and any steps they have taken to lower costs
[[Page 85160]]
associated with Wi-Fi hotspots and service. The anticipated costs
should consider and describe any secondary components, such as
additional hotspot features, different bandwidth capabilities, and any
reasonable fees incurred with the purchase of Wi-Fi hotspots and
services.
12. The Commission next ask about cost-control mechanisms. Should
the Commission adopt a cap on the amount of costs that will be
considered cost-effective for Wi-Fi hotspots and/or monthly services,
and if so, should the Commission rely on ECF program data to establish
a cap for a Wi-Fi hotspot provided to an individual user? For services,
the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) provides discounts of up to
$30 per month towards internet service (or up to $75 per month for
eligible households on qualifying Tribal lands). Are these reasonable
caps on what the Commission might consider cost-effective for monthly
service? Should the Commission use different amounts for the monthly
reimbursement of these services in the E-Rate program, and if so, what
amounts should be used? If the Commission adopts caps on the amounts
considered cost-effective for monthly services, should those caps be
regularly updated, and if so, what mechanism should the Commission use
to make those updates? What requirements should the Commission
implement to ensure service providers in these underserved areas
provide the most cost-effective services to eligible schools and
libraries if a higher amount is allowed for support? The Commission
seeks comment on these questions.
13. Relatedly, under the Commission's E-Rate rules, applicants are
required to conduct fair and open competitive bidding when requesting
funding for eligible services. The competitive bidding requirements are
a cornerstone of the E-Rate program and are critical to ensuring that
applicants obtain the most cost-effective offering available. However,
the Commission recognizes that there may be challenges associated with
conducting competitive bidding for off-premises wireless services that
can be used from multiple locations. How can the Commission ensure
applicants conduct fair and open competitive bidding for off-premises
wireless services while also ensuring students, school staff, and
library patrons can access those services from locations other than
their school or library? For instance, in geographically large
districts, a single service provider may not be able to provide service
throughout the school's or library's service area. Should the
Commission allow applicants to select multiple service providers for
Wi-Fi hotspots and services based on the geographic area(s) of their
students, school staff, and library patrons? How can the Commission
ensure that applicants select the most cost-effective service
offerings? Are there competitively-bid state or other master contracts
available for schools and libraries to purchase Wi-Fi hotspot devices
and services for off-premises use? Are there any other issues that
schools and libraries may encounter during their competitive bidding
processes for Wi-Fi hotspots and services to be used off-premises that
the Commission should also consider?
B. Funding and Prioritization
14. Based on its experience funding Wi-Fi hotspots and services
through the ECF program, the Commission tentatively finds that taking
this step toward addressing the educational needs of millions of
students, school staff, and library patrons caught in the digital and
educational divide is also technically feasible and economically
reasonable, consistent with section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications
Act. The Commission estimates that approximately 4.5 million students,
school staff, and library patrons received mobile broadband service
and/or hotspots through the ECF program for the 2021-2022 school year,
with an average cost of approximately $294 per user per year. The
Commission seeks comment on this estimate, and any data and numerical
evidence that can be used to support or update its estimate. Given that
the demand for E-Rate program funding has consistently fallen below the
program's funding cap in recent years, the Commission believes the cost
of funding Wi-Fi hotspots and services for off-premises use could be
accomplished within the E-Rate program's existing budget, and the
potential increase in program disbursements would result in a
substantial benefit to students, school staff, and library patrons
stuck on the wrong side of the digital and educational divide, and in
the Homework Gap across the country. The Commission seeks comment on
its tentative conclusion.
15. Commenters are also invited to address whether the number of
students, school staff, and library patrons that received mobile
broadband service through Wi-Fi hotspots in the ECF program provides an
accurate basis for estimating demand if the Commission permits mobile
broadband service and Wi-Fi hotspots for off-premises use to be funded
with E-Rate support, particularly given that not all E-Rate
participants applied for the ECF program, and other federal or state
funding may have also been used for this purpose during the pandemic.
The Commission requests additional information on whether there are
schools and libraries that did not apply for ECF support that would
apply for E-Rate support for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and
services. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether the ECF
program's $294 estimated average cost per user provides an accurate
basis for estimating the potential cost to the E-Rate program of
supporting Wi-Fi hotspots and mobile broadband service for off-premises
use, provided the Commission reduces that amount by the average
discounted share that will be paid by schools and libraries. Is this
estimated cost too high, given the ECF program was an emergency program
and there were not program-specific competitive bidding rules, unlike
for the E-Rate program, which requires competitive bidding and for
applicants to select the most cost-effective service offering using
prices of the eligible services as the primary factor? How should the
Commission account for the average three-year lifespan of Wi-Fi hotspot
devices and the fact that many users will be able to continue to use
devices funded through ECF after the sunset of the program, as well as
funded through the other state and federal programs? For example, how
can the Commission prevent parties from replacing ECF-funded Wi-Fi
hotpots with new Wi-Fi hotpots funded through the E-Rate program before
the ECF-funded equipment reaches its end-of-life (EOL)? Could the FCC
manage the potential costs to the E-Rate program by establishing limits
on the amount of support dedicated to the off-premises use of Wi-Fi
hotspots and services? The Commission seeks comment on these questions.
16. The Commission acknowledges that there are some circumstances
where Wi-Fi hotspots and services may not meet the connectivity needs
of all students, school staff, and library patrons caught in the
Homework Gap. The Commission also acknowledges that some schools and
libraries used ECF funding for other remote learning solutions, such as
building their own fixed wireless networks, and may also seek to use E-
Rate funding to continue providing connectivity to their students,
school staff, or patrons after the ECF program sunsets. While the
Commission recognizes that there may be other off-premises uses that
may meet the definition of an educational purpose, these solutions also
have the potential to be extremely costly to fund with the
[[Page 85161]]
very limited E-Rate support and could be duplicative of funding made
available through other state and federal programs. The Commission
seeks comment on these conclusions. The Commission believes that taking
this initial, incremental step to fund Wi-Fi hotspots and services for
off-premises use strikes the right balance and is consistent with its
universal service goals. The Commission also believes its proposal can
be accomplished without excessive cost to the E-Rate program or
significant administrative delay. The Commission therefore proposes to
limit the scope of the NPRM to the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots
and services because the Commission is mindful of its obligation to be
a prudent, responsible steward of the limited E-Rate funding and its
statutory directive to establish rules only to the extent it is
``economically reasonable'' to do so. The Commission invite comment on
this proposal. Recognizing that there may be circumstances where there
is either no commercially available mobile service or the existing
service is insufficient to allow students, school staff, or library
patrons to fully engage in remote learning, the Commission seeks
comment on whether the Commission should consider alternatives for off-
premises services funded through the E-Rate program in such limited
circumstances and what alternatives should be considered. For example,
should the Commission permit schools and libraries to use existing E-
Rate-funded networks to connect students, school staff, or library
patrons off-premises in the narrow instances where commercially
available mobile broadband is not a viable option (e.g., due to
geographic challenges or cost)? The Commission also seeks comment on
how the Commission should determine there is no commercially available
service, or existing service is insufficient to support remote learning
and how to ensure the alternative solutions are the most cost-effective
way of providing service to students, school staff, and library patrons
who otherwise are not able to fully engage in remote learning.
1. Prioritization
17. If the Commission makes students', school staff members', and
library patrons' off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots devices and
services eligible, what category of service should these devices and
services be? Under the current Eligible Services List, wireless
internet services are category one services and are eligible under
limited circumstances. Should the Commission therefore considers Wi-Fi
hotspots to be network equipment necessary to make category one
wireless internet services functional? If the Commission determines
that Wi-Fi hotspots are comparable to internal connections as the State
of Colorado suggests, should these devices be considered category two
services?
18. Based on the Commission's experience in the ECF program and
other publicly available information, the Commission anticipates that
its proposal to fund the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and
services will result in an increase in E-Rate funding requests. In the
event that E-Rate program demand exceeds its annual funding cap, the
Commission seeks comment on how requests for the off-premises use of
Wi-Fi hotspots and services should be prioritized. Are there measures
the Commission should consider to ensure that E-Rate funding remains
available for the currently-eligible category one and category two
services that are needed by schools and libraries? Should these
requests be prioritized after services and equipment needed to bring
connectivity to and within schools and libraries (i.e., category one
and category two services) are funded? Should the Commission prioritize
requests for services associated with the Wi-Fi hotspots purchased
using ECF program funds? Will funding the off-premises use of Wi-Fi
hotspot devices and services have any impact on other pending E-Rate-
related eligibility requests, such as expanding basic firewall services
to include advanced or next-generation firewall services? Are there
other ways to limit the financial impact of supporting the off-premises
use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services? For example, should the Commission
consider an overall budget for these new off-premises services? Should
there be an annual funding cap for the amount of support that is
available for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services? If
so, what should the funding cap be? Should it be indexed to inflation?
Alternatively, would a per-student limit, like the one used for
category two funding budgets, help to ensure the limited E-Rate program
support is distributed equitably to schools and libraries across the
various discount rates? Should the Commission implement these changes
on an interim basis and subsequently assess whether to implement a
permanent rule change based on its interim experience? The Commission
seeks comment on these proposals and questions.
2. Unmet Need
19. The Commission also recognizes that there are insufficient E-
Rate funds to support Wi-Fi hotspots and services for every student,
school staff member, and library patron across the nation. Therefore,
how can the Commission prioritize support for students, school staff,
and library patrons who do not have internet access at home? In the ECF
program, the Commission limited support to students, school staff, and
library patrons without internet access services sufficient to engage
in remote learning. Through its experience in the ECF program, the
Commission understands that schools and libraries have faced challenges
in determining which parts of their population needed access to Wi-Fi
hotspots and services for the upcoming funding year. The Commission
therefore seeks comment on administratively feasible ways to ensure the
E-Rate program prioritizes support for Wi-Fi hotspots and services for
use by students, school staff, or patrons who would otherwise lack
access to internet access services.
20. The ECF program limited support for eligible equipment and
services to students, school staff, or library patrons with unmet need,
and, because it was an emergency COVID-19 relief program, schools and
libraries were required to provide only their best estimate of unmet
need during the application stage. However, because the E-Rate program
is not an emergency program, there is time for schools and libraries to
determine the actual number of students, school staff, and library
patrons with unmet needs. The Commission seeks comment on whether the
Commission should adopt more stringent unmet needs requirements for the
E-Rate program than it adopted for the ECF program. For example, should
the Commission require schools and libraries to conduct and submit as
part of their funding requests a survey or other documentation that
substantiates their student and school staff, or patron population who
has current unmet needs? Would such a requirement raise any privacy
concerns (e.g., insofar as such surveys would be intended to elicit
information from potentially lower-income children, families, and
individuals)? If this requirement would create privacy risks for
students, families, and patrons, how could the Commission mitigate
those risks (e.g., via data minimization, anonymization, or
deidentification)? For example, would it be possible for schools and
libraries to conduct such surveys without collecting any personally
identifiable information (PII) from
[[Page 85162]]
students, staff, or patrons, and what burdens would such a collection
place on school and library resources? If schools and libraries would
need to collect PII, should the Commission requires that all such
information be removed from the survey results when submitted with
funding requests?
21. Are there other ways that the Commission can ensure it focuses
and targets the limited E-Rate program support to only students, school
staff, and library patrons who currently lack broadband access--and who
cannot afford it--so that the E-Rate program does not support services
for students, school staff, or library patrons who already have
broadband connectivity at their homes? For example, should the
Commission restricts the support of off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots
and services to students whose parent or guardian certifies that they
lack broadband at home and who are eligible for the free or reduced-
price lunch program (also known as the National School Lunch Program or
NSLP)? Are there any other school nutrition programs that a student's
parent or guardian should be able to use to demonstrate eligibility
under this approach, such as the School Breakfast Program? What burdens
could conditioning support on NSLP participation impose on school
administrators and/or students? If the Commission declines to use NSLP
for determining eligibility, what other measures could be taken to
ensure the limited E-Rate support is directed to the students with the
greatest need? For school staff and library patrons, are there similar
or alternative requirements that the Commission should consider to
ensure that E-Rate support is used towards existing unmet needs and to
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the program? The Commission seeks
comment on these questions and how to best target E-Rate funding to
only students, school staff, and library patrons with the greatest
need.
22. The Commission further seeks comment on whether there are
certain school populations, such as Head Start and pre-kindergarten
students, for whom the risks may outweigh the benefits of providing E-
Rate support for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services.
For example, studies show that children under the age of 5 should limit
internet access to one hour or less per day and are harmed if exposed
to longer periods of use. The Commission proposes that the Head Start
program, which provides early learning and development for pre-school
children from the ages of 3 to 5, and pre-kindergarten students should
be determined to be ineligible to receive E-Rate support for off-
premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services. The Commission notes that
Head Start and/or pre-kindergarten education facilities serving this
particular age group may be eligible for E-Rate funding for broadband
connectivity to and within their facilities, if determined to be
elementary schools under their applicable state laws. Further, parents
and guardians of Head Start students may be eligible for home internet
access services through ACP because Head Start is an income-based
program and, to qualify, a family must be at or below the federal
poverty level, or participate in a federal government assistance
program. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and other
measures the Commission should take to ensure that the E-Rate program's
limited support is targeted to students, school staff, and library
patrons with the greatest need, as there is insufficient funding to
support the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services for every
student, school staff member, and library patron.
C. Program Safeguards
23. The Commission is mindful of its obligation to protect the
Universal Service Fund (USF) and the USF programs from waste, fraud,
and abuse, and take seriously its duty to be a careful steward of E-
Rate program funds. The Commission is similarly committed to ensuring
the integrity of the E-Rate program and identify below potential tools
at its disposal to ensure that the E-Rate program's funds are used for
its intended purposes, i.e., to enhance and enable access to broadband
services for educational opportunities for schools and libraries
nationwide. The Commission seeks comment on what safeguards the
Commission should consider imposing to protect the constrained E-Rate
funds from waste, fraud, and abuse, and to prevent the imposition of
unnecessary costs on the program.
1. Educational Purpose
24. The Commission first seeks comment on how to ensure that the
off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services is primarily for
educational purposes, consistent with the Commission's rules and
section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act. The COVID-19 pandemic
demonstrated the educational benefits of providing critical broadband
connections to students, school staff, and library patrons and
highlighted their reliance on interactive and collaborative remote
learning outside the physical school or library building. The
Commission recognizes that the use of eligible services on school or
library property typically occurs under the supervision of school or
library staff; whereas, the off-premises use of these services presents
new concerns about ensuring the proper use of the E-Rate-funded
equipment and services that are not directly supervised by the
recipient of the funding. In balancing these benefits and concerns, the
Commission therefore seeks comment on what safeguards should be imposed
to mitigate the risk of off-premises non-educational use of E-Rate-
supported Wi-Fi hotspots and services.
25. Currently, E-Rate participants are required to certify on
program forms that supported services will be used primarily for
educational purposes. The Commission seeks comment on whether requiring
schools and libraries to certify on their forms that E-Rate support is
being used primarily for educational purposes is sufficient to protect
against improper use or if additional guardrails should be imposed to
ensure that services are used ``primarily for educational purposes.''
For example, libraries that used ECF funding to connect their patrons
through Wi-Fi hotspot lending programs are required to provide patrons
with a copy of their eligible use policy and collect signed statements
from patrons confirming that they would otherwise lack access to the
equipment or services necessary to meet their educational needs. Should
the Commission adopt a similar requirement in the E-Rate program and
require schools and libraries to provide copies of their eligible use
policies and collect signed documentation of user compliance from
patrons, school staff members, or parents/guardians of students to
ensure the E-Rate-funded Wi-Fi hotspots and services are used solely by
the intended recipient and serve an educational purpose? How can the
Commission ensure that the off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and services are
being used as intended by the individual student, school staff member,
or library patron for educational purposes, and E-Rate funding is not
being used to provide broadband connectivity for the whole family, for
which there are more appropriate funding sources available, like the
ACP? Should the Commission require schools and libraries, as a
condition of receiving E-Rate support for off-premises use, to include
certain minimum requirements in their eligible use policies, or limit
the duration of time a student, school staff member, or library patron
can use the hotspot at home? Should, for example,
[[Page 85163]]
schools and libraries be required to restrict access to the off-
premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services to students, school staff,
and patrons with appropriate credentials? What would constitute
appropriate credentials? Should there be an annual verification process
to establish continuing need and eligible use for students and school
staff before the start of each school year? Should the documentation
signed by users include a notice of potential consequences if a Wi-Fi
hotspot is used improperly, including the return of the device and
revocation of the associated service? Are there other actions that the
Commission could take to help ensure the appropriate use of the E-Rate-
funded Wi-Fi hotspots and services? The Commission seeks comment on
these questions.
26. If the Commission extends support to the off-premises use of
Wi-Fi hotspots and services, the Commission expects the support would
be subject to the audits and reviews currently utilized in the E-Rate
program (e.g., Beneficiary and Contributor Audit Program (BCAP) audits,
Payment Quality Assurance (PQA) audits, and Payment Integrity Assurance
(PIA) reviews and Selective Reviews (SR) of the FCC Form 471). Are the
current E-Rate audit and application/invoice review mechanisms
sufficient to ensure that off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and services are
actively being used by eligible users primarily for educational
purposes? Should the Commission increase the number and frequency of
random or targeted audits in the first few years of support as a means
of detecting and preventing improper payments for Wi-Fi hotspots and
services that are not needed, are not being used, are being used to
provide home broadband connectivity to an entire family, or are not
being used primarily for an educational purpose? Are there other
issues, such as privacy concerns, or changes the Commission should
consider for audits and reviews related to funding requests and
disbursements for off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services? For
example, because it is presumed to serve an educational purpose when
the services are used on school or library property, how should the
Commission verify that the off-premises use of E-Rate-funded Wi-Fi
hotspots and services are being used for educational purposes? Are
there mechanisms or tools available that would allow for verifying
compliance with E-Rate rules regarding the off-premises use of
supported Wi-Fi hotspots and services that would not require review of
users' online activities, browsing history, etc.? If not, should users
receive advance notice that their use of an E-Rate-supported Wi-Fi
hotspot and service is subject to audit, which may include review of
their online activities and browsing history to verify compliance with
the Commission's rules? The Commission seeks comment on these
questions.
27. The Commission also seeks comment on what other requirements
should be imposed to ensure schools and libraries are not requesting
funding for more Wi-Fi hotspots and services than are necessary to meet
the needs of only students, school staff, and library patrons who lack
access to broadband and are used for educational purposes. For
instance, schools and libraries may allow the community to use E-Rate-
funded services from on-premises locations during non-operating hours,
subject to certain conditions to ensure students always have the first
priority to use the supported services and to protect against the
waste, fraud, and abuse of the funds. Are there similar conditions that
the Commission should impose on the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots
and services to ensure applicants are not requesting excess services
for non-educational purposes like video games or non-educational
streaming services, and that students, school staff, and library
patrons are receiving first priority in the use of school or library
resources? Are there incidental uses that should be permissible, like
telehealth appointments or filling out government forms, that would not
result in a greater demand on E-Rate funding? The Commission seeks
comment on these questions and invite input on what steps schools and
libraries have taken to ensure the off-premises use of ECF-funded Wi-Fi
hotspots and services were used only by the intended individual(s) and
for educational purposes.
2. Usage
28. If the Commission makes off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and
services eligible, how can the Commission prevent the warehousing of
Wi-Fi hotspots and reimbursement for unused equipment and/or services?
Are there ways to prevent the purchase of ``back-up'' Wi-Fi hotspots,
e.g., hotspots purchased in anticipation of loss, breakage, or
additional unmet need? Should the Commission adopt numerical criteria
to assess usage: e.g., should usage below a weekly, monthly, or
quarterly threshold of X hours be treated as ``non-usage''? Should the
Commission require participants to provide evidence of usage and/or
strengthen the certification requirements surrounding non-usage? For
example, should the Commission require the submission of data usage
reports (i.e., reports on the amount of data used, not the substance of
the usage) with requests for reimbursement to demonstrate the Wi-Fi
hotspots and services were used by students, school staff, and library
patrons as intended for the time period being invoiced to the E-Rate
program? Should there be different usage requirements applicable to
schools and libraries? How does the Commission avoid having the E-Rate
program pay for service to Wi-Fi hotspots during the summer, when
students may not be using the devices? For example, should E-Rate
support for schools be limited to only nine months per school year to
prevent the E-Rate program from covering the costs of unused devices
and/or services during the summer? Should the certifications regarding
non-usage in the ECF program be strengthened for the E-Rate program?
How should the certifications be strengthened, and how could a school,
library, or service provider demonstrate compliance with the
certification requirements? The Commission seeks comment on these
questions.
29. The Commission also seeks comment on how schools, libraries,
and service providers should address non-usage issues. If the monthly
usage report indicates that certain hotspot devices are not being used
by the student, school staff member, or library patron, should the
school or library be required to terminate the service to that device?
Should the service provider be responsible for notifying the school or
library which devices had no usage on a monthly basis and be required
to terminate the service? Should there be a cure or notification period
to allow the student, school staff member, or library patron to restart
use of the services or should the services be terminated after there is
a month of no usage? The Commission seeks comment on what requirements
should be implemented to ensure usage of the devices and services and
what actions the school, library, or service provider should be
required to take to address any non-usage issues related to their
students, school staff, or library patrons.
30. The Commission also seeks comment on how the Administrator
should handle non-usage issues related to off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots
and services. If a school or library cannot demonstrate the Wi-Fi
hotspots and services were used by the intended individual, should
their request for reimbursement be denied, and the
[[Page 85164]]
Administrator be directed to reduce the committed funding amount by the
same amount to prevent this funding from being disbursed in the future?
Should schools and libraries be required to notify the Administrator if
their service provider submits invoices for Wi-Fi hotspots or services
that the school or library knows are not being used by its students,
school staff, or library patrons, because, for example, the device has
not been distributed yet? Should the Administrator be directed to seek
recovery from a service provider that invoices the program for Wi-Fi
hotspots and services that were not in use during the reimbursement
period? Should the Commission also prohibit service providers from
invoicing applicants for periods of non-usage? If there is evidence of
non-usage of the off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and/or services, should
schools and libraries be required to file an FCC Form 500, or other
post-commitment request, to reflect the actual periods of time that the
Wi-Fi hotspots and services were in use by their students, school
staff, or library patrons? Should E-Rate participants that improperly
received E-Rate support for unused Wi-Fi hotspots and/or services not
be eligible to request E-Rate support for off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots
and services in future funding years? Or should the school or library
be required to reduce their funding requests by the amount of funding
related to the unused Wi-Fi hotspots and services in future funding
years? The Commission seeks comment on these questions and ways to
ensure the off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and services are actually being
used for their intended purpose of providing broadband connectivity to
students, school staff, and library patrons who lack access and are
used for educational purposes.
3. Duplicative Funding
31. The Commission seeks comment on what safeguards are necessary
to prevent duplicative funding for the same off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots
and/or services across the federal universal service programs and other
funding programs, including federal, state, Tribal, or local programs.
For example, the ACP provides discounts to help low-income households
pay for the home broadband service and connected devices needed for
critical activities like work and school. However, a household may
justifiably receive support from multiple universal service programs at
the same time: for instance, a household may receive a Lifeline-
supported discount on mobile broadband and voice service for a cellular
phone that a parent takes with them to work, while separately receiving
support for a Wi-Fi hotspot to help a child in that same household
complete their homework on a school-issued laptop. How can the
Commission ensure that funding sought for internet access services
through the E-Rate program will not be duplicative of funding received
through other programs, like the ACP, for home internet access, while
recognizing that a household may permissibly benefit from multiple
federal universal service programs simultaneously? If schools and
libraries already provide off-premises access for their students,
school staff, and patrons through ECF or other sources of funding,
should those schools and libraries be prohibited from using E-Rate
support for that same purpose? For example, how does the Commission
ensure that schools and libraries that have purchased Wi-Fi hotspots
with ECF support do not purchase new hotspots with E-Rate support prior
to the end of the useful life of the ECF-funded hotspots? To help us
assess this issue, the Commission asks commenters to identify any ECF
support or other sources of funding currently being used by schools or
libraries to subsidize off-premises access for students, school staff,
and library patrons that would eliminate or reduce the need for E-Rate-
supported Wi-Fi hotspots. Would a certification by the school or
library be sufficient to indicate that E-Rate support is only being
sought for eligible students, school staff, or library patrons and the
school or library does not already have access to Wi-Fi hotspots
purchased with ECF support or other sources of funding? The Commission
seeks comment on how to prevent duplicative funding between E-Rate,
ECF, and other funding programs, including federal, state, Tribal, or
local programs.
4. Recordkeeping
32. The Commission's rules currently requires schools and libraries
to retain all documentation related to the application, receipt, and
delivery of eligible services received through the E-Rate program for
at least ten years after the last date of the delivery of services. The
Commission proposes to apply existing E-Rate recordkeeping requirements
to funding provided for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and
services. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and whether
additional recordkeeping requirements should be imposed for these
purposes. For example, while both the E-Rate and ECF rules require
applicants to maintain inventories of equipment purchased with the
programs' support, ECF rules require applicants to maintain specific
information in their equipment and service inventories for each device
or service purchased with ECF support and provided to an individual
student, school staff member, or library patron. For each hotspot
purchased with ECF support, a school or library must maintain the
device make/model, the device serial number, the name of the person to
whom the device was provided, and the dates the device was loaned out
and returned to the school or library. Each ECF-funded service
inventory must include the type of service provided, the broadband plan
details (i.e., upload and download speeds and the monthly data cap),
and the name of the person to whom the service was provided. Should the
Commission adopts these inventory requirements in the E-Rate program
for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services? For Wi-Fi
hotspot lending programs, should the Commission consider library-
specific inventory rules?
33. The Commission seeks comment on any other issues related to
maintaining documentation to demonstrate compliance with E-Rate rules
and certifications. Related to the Commission's unmet need inquiries,
should applicants be required to maintain records of students', school
staff members', or library patrons' unmet needs, and if so, what types
of records should be required (e.g., surveys)? If the Commission
requires schools and libraries to retain new records regarding unmet
needs containing PII, how can the Commission address any privacy risks
to students, families, school staff, and patrons? Related to its non-
usage requirements inquiries, the Commission notes that service
providers would be required to retain and produce monthly usage reports
for off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and services funded through the E-Rate
program under its current rules. Should applicants be required to
request and retain monthly usage reports from their service providers
as well? Are there other recordkeeping requirements for the off-
premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services that should be considered
by the Commission?
D. Legal Authority and Other Outstanding Issues
34. Several stakeholders have argued that the Commission should,
and has the authority to, clarify that the E-Rate program may support
off-premises solutions like Wi-Fi hotspots for extending connectivity
to students', school staff members', and patrons' homes. For example,
the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB)
[[Page 85165]]
Coalition argued that section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act
does not prohibit the provision of E-Rate support for off-premises
services; rather, it simply requires a demonstration by E-Rate
participants that the off-premises use of eligible equipment and
services primarily serves an educational purpose. Additionally, Apple
posited that the Commission should determine that equipment and
services that support remote learning, like Wi-Fi hotspots, are
eligible for E-Rate support because they ``enhance . . . access to
advanced telecommunications and information services'' for schools and
libraries under section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act. The
Commission tentatively concludes, consistent with the recent Wi-Fi on
School Buses Declaratory Ruling and the Commission's past
determinations regarding the off-campus use of certain E-Rate services,
that the Commission has authority under section 254 of the
Communications Act to permit eligible schools and libraries to receive
E-Rate support for Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless internet services that
may be used off-premises. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative
conclusion and the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority,
including the applicability of CIPA requirements.
35. First, the Commission tentatively concludes that such Wi-Fi
hotspot and wireless internet services that may be used off-premises
and are targeted for use by students and educators constitute services
that are ``provide[d] . . . to elementary schools, secondary schools,
and libraries,'' and thus may be supported pursuant to section
254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act when used ``for educational
purposes.'' The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion,
including that the reference to ``elementary schools, secondary
schools, and libraries'' does not constrain us from supporting off-
premises use of such services for educational purposes. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether and under what circumstances the off-
premises use of wireless services, and the Wi-Fi hotspots needed to
deliver such services, by students, school staff, and library patrons
at locations other than at a school or library constitutes an
educational purpose under section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications
Act. Taking into consideration the lack of a reliable broadband
connection at some students', school staff members', and library
patrons' homes, and the increasing need for connectivity in today's
technology-based educational environment that extends learning beyond a
school or library building (e.g., for virtual classes, electronic
research projects, homework assignments, virtual library resources, and
job or government assistance applications), as well as its experience
connecting students, school staff, and library patrons using ECF-funded
Wi-Fi hotspots and services, the Commission specifically proposes that
the off-premises use of mobile wireless services and the Wi-Fi hotspots
needed to deliver such connectivity is integral, immediate, and
proximate to the education of students, or in the case of libraries,
integral, immediate, and proximate to the provision of library
services. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and invite
commenters to provide specific examples of how Wi-Fi hotspots and
services used off-premises serve an educational purpose. As discussed
in greater detail above, the Commission also seeks comment on the
necessary safeguards to ensure that this off-premises use is primarily
for educational purposes, consistent with its rules and section
254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act.
36. Next, the Commission seeks comment on whether supporting Wi-Fi
hotspots and services is consistent with the Commission's precedent
permitting certain off-premises uses of other E-Rate-funded services.
Although prior off-premises uses permitted by the Commission were
limited to telecommunications services, the Commission has expressly
rejected the assertion that the support provided under section 254(h)
of the Communications Act is limited to telecommunications services.
Specifically, in the First Universal Service Order, 62 FR 32862, June
17, 1997, the Commission concluded that section 254(h)(1)(B) through
section 254(c)(3) of the Communications Act authorizes universal
service support for telecommunications services and additional services
such as information services. Furthermore, in the Wi-Fi on School Buses
Declaratory Ruling, the Commission concluded that the provision of
support for Wi-Fi on school buses fit squarely within its authority
under section 254(h)(1)(B) to designate `` `services that are within
the definition of universal service under subsection (c)(3),' which
itself authorizes the Commission to designate non-telecommunications
services for support under E-Rate.'' To the extent section 254(h)(1)(B)
of the Communications Act encompasses additional services, such as
information services, does the Commission have a basis to authorize
support under that subsection for wireless Internet access services
needed for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots?
37. The Commission also seeks comment on how the Commission should
reconcile the authority provided under section 254(h)(1)(B) of the
Communications Act to support certain ``services'' with the fact that
Wi-Fi hotspots are physical devices needed to provide those services.
In the First Universal Service Order, for example, the Commission
specifically concluded that ``it can include `the information services'
e.g., protocol conversion and information storage, that are needed to
access the Internet, as well as internal connections, as `additional
services' that section 254(h)(1)(B), through section 254(c)(3),
authorizes us to support.'' Consistent with that precedent, the
Commission tentatively concludes that the Commission has authority
under section 254(h)(1)(B) through section 254(c)(3) of the
Communications Act to support the Wi-Fi hotspot devices that are needed
for the off-premises use of the broadband services. The Commission
invites comment on its tentative conclusion.
38. Further, the Commission tentatively concludes that providing E-
Rate support for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services
``enhance[s], to the extent technically feasible and economically
reasonable, access to advanced telecommunications and information
services for all public and nonprofit elementary and secondary school
classrooms . . . and libraries'' consistent with section 254(h)(2)(A)
of the Communications Act. Funding the off-premises use of Wi-Fi
hotspots and services will help provide the broadband connectivity
necessary to support the ability of schools and libraries to facilitate
remote learning for students, school staff, and library patrons who
lack access when they are away from school or library premises and will
allow schools and libraries to provide digital educational resources at
anytime from anywhere. Therefore, the Commission believes the action
proposed today will enhance schools' and libraries' access to advanced
telecommunications and information services under section 254(h)(2)(A)
of the Communications Act. The Commission seeks comment on this
interpretation.
39. The Commission also tentatively concludes that this proposal is
consistent with the Commission's exercise of its authority under
section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act to establish the
Connected Care Pilot Program and in its recent Declaratory Ruling
clarifying that use of Wi-Fi
[[Page 85166]]
services on school buses is an educational purpose and, therefore, can
be eligible for E-Rate support. In establishing the Connected Care
Pilot Program, the Commission found that providing support for
patients' home broadband connections expanded health care providers'
digital footprints for purposes of providing connected care services
and allowed health care providers to serve more patients through the
pilot program, thus enhancing eligible health care providers' access to
advanced telecommunications and information services. Similarly, in the
recent Wi-Fi on School Buses Declaratory Ruling, the Commission found
that ``the use of Wi-Fi on school buses to aid the many students who
lack robust internet access at home similarly enhances eligible
schools' and libraries' access to advanced telecommunications and
information services.'' Would funding Wi-Fi hotspots and services to
provide off-premises connectivity to students, school staff, and
library patrons who lack access similarly enhance eligible schools' and
libraries' access to advanced telecommunications and information
services? The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion.
40. Off-Premises Limitations. In tentatively concluding that
providing E-Rate support for off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and
services is consistent with section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications
Act, the Commission also seeks comment on how today's modern
educational environment has evolved for the purposes of enhancing
affordable access to 21st Century broadband services capable of
supporting today's digital learning. The Commission has long recognized
the evolving nature of educational technology, noting in the 2010
National Broadband Plan that ``[o]nline educational systems are rapidly
taking learning outside the classroom, creating a potential situation
where students with access to broadband at home will have an even
greater advantage over those students who can only access these
resources at their public schools and libraries.'' Over a decade later,
and in the wake of nationwide school and library shutdowns, the need
for connectivity for remote learning has become only more pronounced.
There is little doubt that advances in technology have enabled students
to continue to learn well after the school bell rings, including from
their homes or other locations like, for example, youth centers.
Today's learning settings have evolved, and learning now occurs outside
of the school or library building, increasing the need to have
broadband connections for educational success. As such, the Commission
seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that the reference in section
254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act to ``elementary and secondary
school classrooms . . . and libraries'' extends to student, school
staff, and library patron homes, given that today's educational
environment clearly extends outside of the physical school or library
building. Does the modern student, school staff member, or library
patron require internet access outside of school or library premises to
achieve their educational goals? Is there data showing the extent to
which certain educational activities take place in both the physical
on-premises classroom and other off-premises locations? What about the
extent to which students are required to do homework or engage in
remote learning beyond school or library premises? The Commission
invites commenters to share their experiences with the increasingly
virtual nature of the modern educational environment and how evolving
technologies have changed education.
41. As noted, Congress did not define ``classrooms'' for the
purposes of section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act. In the
First Universal Service Order, the Commission concluded that the
statutory reference to ``classrooms'' demonstrated that Congress
intended to fund service to each individual classroom but did not
define the term. More recently, the Commission determined that ``in
today's world, teaching and learning often occur outside of brick and
mortar school buildings and thus `classroom' may be interpreted more
broadly,'' which may include, for example, school buses. The Commission
seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt a definition of
``classrooms'' for the purposes of the E-Rate program and what would be
an appropriate definition to adequately cover the modern learning
environment. Do homes and other off-premises locations (i.e., community
centers, after-school centers, etc.) function as ``virtual classrooms''
within the meaning of ``classrooms'' as used in section 254(h)(2)(A) of
the Communications Act, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic?
Furthermore, in establishing universal service support for schools and
libraries, Congress explained that the intent of the support authorized
under subsection (h)(2) is to ``enhance the availability of advanced
telecommunications and information services to public institutional
telecommunications users'' and to ensure ``Americans everywhere'' have
access ``via schools and libraries.'' The Commission seeks comment on
whether interpreting ``classroom'' to mean an in-person, on-premises
setting would bar any intended Americans from benefiting from supported
advanced telecommunications and information services. Alternatively,
would a broader interpretation of ``classrooms'' to include locations
other than the school or library and that focuses on the intended
beneficiaries' (i.e., ``Americans everywhere'') ability to access
educational services, rather than the exact location of the services,
be consistent with Congress's intent? Relatedly, if the Commission
adopts a broader interpretation of ``classrooms'', is there a
definition that strikes a balance between ensuring access to
educational services in this evolving learning environment while also
establishing boundaries to ensure that the off-premises use of E-Rate-
supported services remains the exception to the general presumption
that activities that occur on library or school property serve an
educational purpose? The Commission emphasizes that any determination
of support for off-premises use of E-Rate-supported services will still
be subject to the relevant statutory requirements discussed herein,
including that the Commission first finds that the off-premises
provision of such services serves an educational purpose pursuant to
section 254(h)(1)(B), and enhances, to the extent technically feasible
and economically reasonable, access to advanced telecommunications and
information services under section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications
Act. The Commission seeks comment on whether these limitations are
sufficient to ensure that E-Rate funding is being used for its intended
purposes.
42. The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). The Commission
seeks comment on the applicability of the Children's Internet
Protection Act (CIPA) when connecting to internet made available by E-
Rate-funded Wi-Fi hotspots and services. Congress enacted CIPA to
protect children from exposure to harmful material while accessing the
internet from a school or library. In enacting CIPA, Congress was
particularly concerned with protecting children from exposure to
material that was obscene, child pornography, or otherwise
inappropriate for minors (i.e., harmful content). CIPA prohibits
certain schools and libraries from receiving funding under section
254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act for internet access, internet
service, or internal
[[Page 85167]]
connections, unless they comply with specific internet safety
requirements. Specifically, CIPA applies to schools and libraries
``having computers with internet access,'' and requires each such
school or library to certify that it is enforcing a policy of internet
safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure
``with respect to any of its computers with internet access.'' Schools,
but not libraries, must also monitor the online activities of minors
and provide education about appropriate online behavior, including
warnings against cyberbullying. The Commission tentatively concludes
that the requirements of CIPA would apply to school- or library-owned
computers being used off-premises if the school or library receives
internet service, internet access, or network connection services or
related equipment (including Wi-Fi hotspots) funded through the E-Rate
program, and seek comment on this conclusion.
43. In the ECF program, the Commission found that the purchase of
hotspots would qualify as the purchase of network equipment for
internet access, internet service, or internal connections, and would
trigger CIPA compliance for the purchasing school or library only if
used with any school- or library-owned computers. Similarly, other ECF-
funded recurring internet access or internet services (if any) used
off-premises triggers CIPA compliance if used with any school- or
library-owned computer. On the other hand, the Commission determined
for the ECF program that CIPA does not apply to the use of any third-
party-owned device, even if that device is connecting to a school's or
library's ECF-funded hotspot or other ECF-funded internet access or
internet service. The Commission seeks comment on whether this is the
appropriate interpretation of CIPA with regard to E-Rate-funded Wi-Fi
hotspots and services used off-premises as discussed further below.
44. At the time of CIPA's enactment, schools and libraries
primarily owned one or two stationary computer terminals that were used
solely on-premises. Today, it is commonplace for students, school
staff, and library patrons to carry internet-enabled devices onto
school or library premises and for schools and libraries to allow
third-party-owned devices access to their internet and broadband
networks. In view of the changes in technology and the wider range of
internet-enabled devices in circulation today, the Commission seeks
comment on whether its current interpretation of CIPA's applicability
to computers owned by schools or libraries that receive E-Rate-funded
internet service, internet access, or internal connections achieves
CIPA's intended purpose of protecting minors from exposure to harmful
content while accessing internet services provided by a school or
library. Are students or library patrons able to access content that is
obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors through E-Rate-funded
internet or internal connections when they use their own (i.e., third-
party) computers or devices? What steps can the Commission take to
ensure that E-Rate funding is not being used to facilitate minors'
access to harmful content, including when using third-party-owned
devices to connect to E-Rate-funded internet access, internet service,
or internal connections? The Commission also understands that many
mobile broadband service providers include network-level filtering in
their service offerings and that many schools and libraries already
deploy network-level technology protection measures. The Commission
seeks comment on whether it can and should require or encourage
filtering and other technology protection measures to be implemented at
the network-level to ensure that minors are not accessing harmful
content through E-Rate-funded internet access, internet service, or
internal connections. The Commission invites input from commenters on
their experiences implementing and using network-level protections to
protect minors from accessing harmful content.
45. The Commission also invites comment on the scope of the
Commission's authority to impose requirements on third-party-owned
devices pursuant to CIPA. For example, the Commission seeks comment on
whether the requirement in section 254(h)(5)(B)(i) of the
Communications Act that requires schools to certify that their internet
safety policy ``includes monitoring the online activities of minors''
could be construed to extend to third-party-owned devices,
notwithstanding other language in CIPA that suggests that its
applicability is limited to school- or library-owned computers. Should
monitoring the online activities of minors requirement apply to third-
party-owned devices that use or access E-Rate-funded internet access,
internet service, or internal connections? Is that interpretation
consistent with Congress's intent ``to protect America's children from
exposure to obscene material, child pornography, or other material
deemed inappropriate for minors while accessing the internet from a
school or library receiving Federal Universal Service assistance for
provisions of internet access, internet service, or internal
connection''? The Commission seeks information about current practices
that would assist the Commission in formulating policies that reflect
the importance of CIPA protections in the context of more modern uses
of the internet services supported by E-Rate.
46. The Commission also seeks comment on how CIPA's requirements
are being met remotely and whether the Commission's existing CIPA-
related rules adequately cover off-premises use. What measures are ECF
recipients taking to comply with CIPA when providing ECF-funded
hotspots for use on school- or library-owned computers? How are
libraries balancing CIPA requirements and the needs of library patrons
who rely on E-Rate-funded internet access or internal connections for
remote learning and other E-Rate approved uses (e.g., job searching)?
The Commission seeks comment on these questions and whether there may
be other circumstances it has not considered related to the application
of CIPA to the proposals in the NPRM.
47. Finally, the Commission acknowledges there are privacy concerns
related to certain CIPA requirements, particularly as it relates to
library patrons' data that is often subject to various federal and/or
state privacy laws. The Commission seeks comment on these privacy-
related issues and encourage commenters to be specific about how CIPA
can be applied to ensure minors who are using E-Rate-funded Wi-Fi
hotspots and services are protected from harmful online content, as
intended by Congress. The Commission also seeks comment on any privacy-
related implications if network-level filtering or other technology
protection measures are required for third-party-owned devices that
access E-Rate funded internet or internal connections.
E. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion
48. 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.
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how its proposals may
promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and
[[Page 85168]]
accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal
authority.
III. Procedural Matters
49. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
by the policies and rules proposed in the Addressing the Homework Gap
through the E-Rate Program, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
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 in the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).
50. The Commission's E-Rate program provides support to schools and
libraries, allowing them to obtain affordable, high-speed broadband
services and internal connections, which enables them to connect
students and library patrons to critical next-generation learning
opportunities and services. The primary objectives of the NPRM are to
address the remote learning needs of today's students, school staff,
and library patrons and to help close the country's digital and
educational divide (sometimes referred to as the Homework Gap),
particularly once ECF program funding for off-premises broadband
connectivity ends on June 30, 2024. To achieve these objectives, the
NPRM proposes to make the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and
services by students, school staff, and library patrons who would
otherwise be unable to engage in remote learning eligible for E-Rate
support.
51. The Commission seeks comments on its proposal to address the
Homework Gap through the E-Rate program. Based on the Commission's
experience gained through the ECF program, its prior record, and other
data sources, the Commission believes that there are significant
benefits and need for the proposed rules in continuing to fund the off-
premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services for students, school staff,
and library patrons who would otherwise be unable to fully engage in
remote learning. The NPRM requests comments on multiple ways to
implement funding for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and
services within the existing E-Rate program processes, including
eligibility limits and how to prioritize requests for off-premises Wi-
Fi hotspots and services to help balance service needs with limited E-
Rate funding. It also seeks comments on how to ensure cost-effective
purchases and the potential challenges associated with conducting
competitive bidding for off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and services.
Additionally, the NPRM seeks comments on what actions are necessary to
safeguard these critical funds from potential waste, fraud, or abuse,
for example, how to ensure the off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and services
are being used by the intended recipient and serve an educational
purpose. The Commission also seeks comment on modifying the
recordkeeping requirements to require applicants to maintain equipment
and service inventories for off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and services
purchased with E-Rate support. Furthermore, the NPRM seeks comments on
how to protect minor online users from harmful content.
52. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1
through 4, 201-202, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 201-202, 254, 303(r), and
403.
53. 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 that: (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.
54. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describes, at the outset, three broad groups of small
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, 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 33.2 million businesses.
55. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
56. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school districts
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that
at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
57. Small entities potentially affected by the rules herein include
Schools, Libraries, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, All Other
Telecommunications, Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite), Wireless Telephony, Wired Broadband internet Access Service
Providers (Wired ISPs), Wireless Broadband internet Access Service
Providers (Wireless ISPs or WISPs), internet Service Providers (Non-
Broadband), Vendors of Infrastructure Development or Network Buildout,
Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing, and Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing.
58. The potential rule changes discussed in the NPRM if adopted,
could impose some new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements on small entities. The NPRM proposes to apply
existing E-Rate recordkeeping requirements to funding provided for the
off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services and seeks comment on
[[Page 85169]]
whether additional recordkeeping requirements should be imposed, such
as the requirement in the ECF program to maintain detailed equipment
and service inventories for each device or service purchased with ECF
support and provided to an individual student, school staff member, or
library patron. The proposed actions would require schools and
libraries to maintain inventory records of the Wi-Fi hotspot device
make/model, the device serial number, the name of the person to whom
the device was provided, and the dates the device was loaned out and
returned to the school or library; and for services, the type of
service provided, the broadband plan details (i.e., upload and download
speeds and the monthly data cap), and the name of the person to whom
the service was provided. To ensure the equipment and services are
being used, the NPRM also seeks comment on whether applicants and/or
service providers should be required to retain and produce monthly
usage reports for Wi-Fi hotspots and services funded through the E-Rate
program.
59. Additionally, regarding the Commission's proposal to prioritize
for students, school staff, and library patrons that lack internet
access outside of school or library premises, the NPRM asks whether
applicants should be required to determine and maintain records of
students', school staff members', or library patrons' unmet need by,
for example, conducting surveys. Although, new recordkeeping
requirements may be implemented if the proposals in the NPRM are
adopted, most of the recordkeeping would be similar to what most
applicants, including small entities, are already familiar with and
currently undertaking for the E-Rate and ECF programs.
60. In assessing the cost of compliance for small entities, at this
time the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with any of
the potential rule changes that may be adopted. Further, the Commission
is not in a position to determine whether, if adopted, the proposals
and matters upon which the NPRM seeks comment will require small
entities to hire professionals to comply. The information the
Commission receives in comments, including, where requested, cost
information, will help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant
compliance matters for small entities, including compliance costs and
other burdens that may result from potential changes discussed in the
NPRM.
61. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(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.''
62. In the NPRM, the Commission takes steps to minimize the
economic impact on small entities of the proposed changes to the E-Rate
program on which it seeks comment. Absent the proposed action, schools
and libraries receiving ECF program support may no longer be able to
provide the broadband connectivity needed to engage in remote learning
to their students, school staff, and library patrons once the program
ends. The NPRM therefore proposes to make the off-premises use of Wi-Fi
hotspots and services eligible for E-Rate funding to support remote
learning for students, school staff, and library patrons with unmet
needs, which, if adopted, will reduce the burden on applicants,
including small entities, who seek to provide students, school staff,
and library patrons the off-premise broadband connectivity needed for
educational success. This proposal will also lessen the administrative
requirements of cost-allocating certain portions of services used off-
premises from applicants' funding requests. The NPRM also seeks comment
relevant to small entities, including entities in remote areas, by
asking how to conduct competitive bidding for off-premises wireless
services delivered to multiple locations.
63. Additionally, the NPRM invites commenters to suggest other
measures or alternatives the Commission should consider to best
implement E-Rate funding for Wi-Fi hotspots and internet services for
off-premises use. This may result in proposals from small entities that
lessen the economic impact of the proposed changes to the E-Rate
program, and increase their participation. The Commission expects the
information received in the comments to allow it to more fully consider
ways to minimize the economic impact on small entities and explore
additional alternatives to improve and simplify opportunities for small
entities to participate in the E-Rate program.
64. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules. None.
65. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document seeks comment on
possible modified 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. 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.
66. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent
with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law
118-9, a summary of this document will be available on <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
67. Ex Parte Rules--Permit but Disclose. Pursuant to section
1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, the NPRM 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 section
[[Page 85170]]
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.
IV. Ordering Clauses
68. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
found in sections 1 through 4, 201-202, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 201
through 202, 254, 303(r), and 403, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
is adopted.
69. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54
Communications common carriers, Hotspots, Internet, Libraries,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Telecommunications,
Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend part 54 of title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE
0
1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220,
229, 254, 303(r), 403, 1004, 1302, 1601-1609, and 1752, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend section 54.504 by adding paragraphs (a)(1)(x) through (xiii),
and adding paragraph (f)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.504 Requests for services.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(x) If requesting support for Wi-Fi hotspots and service for use
off-premises, the school or school consortium listed on the FCC Form
471 application is only seeking support for eligible equipment and/or
services provided to students and school staff who would otherwise lack
internet access service sufficient to engage in remote learning.
(xi) If requesting support for Wi-Fi hotspots and service for use
off-premises, the library or library consortium listed on the FCC Form
471 application is only seeking support for eligible equipment and/or
services provided to library patrons who have signed and returned a
statement (physically or electronically) that the library patron would
otherwise lack access but for the use of equipment and/or service
provided by the library.
(xii) If requesting support for Wi-Fi hotspots and service for use
off-premises, the school, library, or consortium is not seeking support
and reimbursement for eligible equipment and/or services that have been
purchased and reimbursed in full with other federal, state, Tribal, or
local funding, or providing duplicative equipment and/or services to a
student, school staff member, or library patron.
(xiii) The school, library, or consortium will create and maintain
an equipment and service inventory as required by Sec. 54.516(a)(3).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(6) If requesting reimbursement for Wi-Fi hotspots and service for
use off-premises, the service provider will provide the school,
library, or consortium with notice if a student, school staff member,
or library patron has not used the equipment and/or service within the
past [30] days and will not willfully or knowingly request
reimbursement or invoice the school, library, or consortium for
eligible equipment and/or services that were not used. The service
provider shall provide the school, library, or consortium with monthly
usage data upon request.
0
3. Amend Section 54.516 by revising paragraph (a)(1), adding paragraph
(a)(3), and revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.516 Auditing and inspections.
(a) * * *
(1) Schools, libraries, and consortia. Schools, libraries, and any
consortium that includes schools or libraries shall retain all
documents related to the application for, receipt, and delivery of
supported services for at least 10 years after the latter of the last
day of the applicable funding year or the service delivery deadline for
the funding request. Any other document that demonstrates compliance
with the statutory or regulatory requirements for the schools and
libraries mechanism shall be retained as well. Subject to paragraph
(a)(3) of this section, schools, libraries, and consortia shall
maintain asset and service inventory records for a period of 10 years
from the last date of service or delivery of equipment.
* * * * *
(3) Asset and service inventory requirements. Schools, libraries,
and consortia shall keep asset and service inventories as follows:
(i) For equipment purchased as components of supported category two
services, the asset inventory must be sufficient to verify the actual
location of such equipment.
(ii) For each Wi-Fi hotspot provided to an individual student,
school staff member, or library patron, the asset inventory must
identify:
(A) The device or equipment make/model;
(B) The device or equipment serial number;
(C) The full name of the person to whom the device or other piece
of equipment was provided; and
(D) The dates the device or other piece of equipment was loaned out
and returned to the school or library, or the date the school or
library was notified that the device or other piece of equipment was
missing, lost, or damaged.
(iii) For mobile wireless services provided through Wi-Fi hotspots
to individual students, school staff, or library patrons, the service
inventory must contain:
(A) The type of service provided (i.e., mobile wireless);
(B) The service plan details, including upload and download speeds
and any monthly data cap; and
(C) The full name of the person(s) to whom the service was
provided.
(b) Production of Records. Schools, libraries, consortia, and
service providers shall produce such records at the request of any
representative (including any auditor) appointed by a state education
department, the Administrator, the FCC, or any local, state, or federal
agency with jurisdiction over the entity. Where necessary for
compliance with Federal or state privacy laws, E-Rate participants may
produce records regarding students, school staff, and library patrons
in an anonymized or deidentified format. When requested by the
Administrator or the Commission, as part of an audit or investigation,
schools, libraries, and consortia must seek consent to provide
personally identifiable information from
[[Page 85171]]
a student who has reach age of majority, the relevant parent/guardian
of a minor student, or the school staff member or library patron prior
to disclosure.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-26033 Filed 12-6-23; 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 December 7, 2023.
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.