Proposed Rule2024-18123
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
August 20, 2024
Effective
October 4, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) seeks further comment on how to ensure the success of schools and libraries' hotspot lending programs, including through continued collaboration by multiple stakeholders.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67394-67400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18123]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 21-31; FCC 24-76; FR ID 237188]
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 or FCC) seeks further comment on how to ensure the success
of schools and libraries' hotspot lending programs, including through
continued collaboration by multiple stakeholders.
DATES: Comments are due on or before October 4, 2024, and reply
comments are due on or before November 4, 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 person listed 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 Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (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 hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service.
[[Page 67395]]
All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<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#dcbabfbfe9ece89cbabfbff2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aec8cdcd9b9e9aeec8cdcd80c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact, Molly O'Conor, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d19cbebdbda8ff9eb2bebfbea391b7b2b2ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="44092b28283d6a0b272b2a2b36042227276a232b32">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 418-7400.
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#dbbdb8b8eeebef9bbdb8b8f5bcb4ad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="51373232646165113732327f363e27">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer and government Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Report and Order (Order) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM) in WC Docket No. 21-31; FCC 24-76, adopted July 18, 2024 and
released July 29, 2024. 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://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-76A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-76A1.pdf</a>.
Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte
submissions will be publicly available online via ECFS.
Ex Parte Presentations-Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this
document initiates 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 rule 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.
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>.
Synopsis
Introduction
Technology has become an integral part of the modern classroom and
receiving an education, especially in the recent past, and the barrier
to accessing such technology puts individuals at a significant
disadvantage to their peers and often prevents educators from being
able to teach. In the Order, the Commission takes steps to modernize
the E-Rate program to meet the evolving needs of schools and libraries
around the country by allowing for the distribution of Wi-Fi hotspots
and services to students, school staff, and library patrons for off-
premises use.
Since its inception more than 25 years ago, the Commission's E-Rate
program has supported high-speed, affordable internet services to and
within school and library buildings, and has been instrumental in
providing students, school staff, and library patrons with access to
the essential broadband services that are required for next-generation
learning. Recognizing the Commission's responsibility to ensure the E-
Rate program evolves with the educational needs of students and library
patrons, the Commission has frequently modernized the program to
reflect the changes in education and technology, including by providing
more equitable access to funding for Wi-Fi networks in schools and
libraries. Recently the Commission has seen significant advances in
technology that have changed not only the way schools and libraries
provide educational resources, but also the way students, school staff,
and library patrons access such resources. In particular, an internet
connection has become an essential requirement for learners to access
tasks that are vital to obtaining an education, including homework
assignments, online classes, library materials, continuing education,
and career and government applications.
The need for internet connectivity beyond the campus boundaries was
further underscored by nationwide school and library closures beginning
in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, when most educational
activities were unexpectedly forced to shift online overnight. During
this time, thanks to the creativity and resourcefulness of schools and
libraries around the country, many students, school staff, and library
patrons that would have been caught on the wrong side of the digital
divide or the ``Homework Gap''--i.e., students unable to fully
participate in educational opportunities because they lack broadband
connectivity in their homes--were able to obtain a broadband connection
provided by their local school or library. Many schools and libraries
used funding provided through the congressionally-appropriated
Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) program to purchase connected
devices, Wi-Fi hotspot devices, broadband connections, and other
eligible equipment and services for students, school staff, and library
patrons in need, to use at a variety of locations, including locations
other than schools and libraries, during the pandemic. Notably, schools
and libraries found success in establishing ECF-funded Wi-Fi hotspot
[[Page 67396]]
lending programs to provide the hotspot equipment and monthly mobile
wireless broadband services needed to connect individuals who otherwise
lacked the internet access needed to fully participate in remote
learning.
Even with schools and libraries reopening and returning to in-
person instruction, the need for internet connections outside of the
school or library buildings to fully engage in education remains, and
schools and libraries are seeking to continue funding these valuable
lending programs to keep their students, school staff, and library
patrons connected. That is why the Commission adapts the E-Rate program
to recognize these needs. Building on its experiences in the ECF
program and the comments the Commission received in response to the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 88 FR 85157, December 7, 2023,
the Commission adopts a budget mechanism to allow for the equitable
distribution of Wi-Fi hotspots and services to students, school staff,
and library patrons. These rules are intended to be another step in
updating the E-Rate program to reflect the realities of many schools
and libraries by lending Wi-Fi hotspots and services through community
and school libraries across the country so that students, school staff,
and library patrons with the greatest need can be connected and learn
without limits. The Commission also adopts the FNPRM to seek comment on
additional ways to ensure the continued success of such Wi-Fi hotspot
lending programs funded through the E-Rate program.
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this document, the Commission seeks further comment on how to
ensure the success of schools and libraries' hotspot lending programs,
including through continued collaboration by multiple stakeholders. In
particular, the Commission seeks comment on the most effective means to
ensure that limited E-Rate program funds are being used effectively and
efficiently, and that Wi-Fi hotspots and services are being used for
educational purposes and are not going unused. In the Order, the
Commission focuses on ensuring distribution of the Wi-Fi hotspots and
setting a maximum period of non-usage that will result in a line being
terminated. The Commission also relies on program integrity and post-
commitment reviews to check compliance with its rules. Now, the
Commission seeks to further refine its rules to determine a fair and
administratively feasible mechanism to set clear limits on E-Rate
support for hotspot devices that have been distributed, but that may
have limited periods of non-use, without unfairly burdening both
applicants and service providers. The applicant community seeks
assurance that schools and libraries do not become the financial
guarantors of all service charges for which there was non-usage, while
service providers assert that they have no way to control or enforce
the use of a hotspot provided by an applicant to a student, staff
member, or library patron. For this reason, the Commission has adopted
what it finds to be a sensible approach for addressing non-usage by
focusing on distribution, prohibiting warehousing, terminating service
to lines that go unused for approximately 90 days, and relying on
program integrity reviews to check compliance as the commission begin
implementing Wi-Fi hotspot and service support. The Commission now
seeks further comment on administratively feasible methods to encourage
maximal usage of these services and devices.
For instance, the Commission seeks comment on ways applicants could
take active steps to ensure that E-Rate-supported Wi-Fi hotspots are
being used by the students, school staff, and library patrons to whom
they are distributed. The Commission recognizes that even under the
best circumstances, there may be students or library patrons who simply
do not turn on a device once they have checked it out. In these
instances, are there steps the applicant should be required to take in
order to decrease the chances that the distributed hotspots go unused
by the users? Should schools and libraries be required to have
technical support available to teach users how to use the Wi-Fi
hotspots or troubleshoot issues that may arise? Should schools and
libraries be required to limit the lending period to a short period
(e.g., 21 days or less) in order to redistribute hotspots to other
students or library patrons that may have both the need and ability to
use the hotspot? For longer lending periods, should the Commission
imposes a specific period of non-usage (e.g., 30 days) after which
schools and libraries must seek the return of the hotspot so the device
can be loaned out again to another user who will use the device? The
Commission understands that schools and libraries often already do
this, but seek comment on whether such policies and processes should be
required before reimbursement is permitted and, if so, what the best
approaches are for enforcing this requirement. What other steps can
schools and libraries take to ensure the E-Rate-funded hotspots and
services are being used by students, school staff members, and library
patrons? Are there better ways to implement certifications to reduce
the chances that the E-Rate program is supporting Wi-Fi hotspots and
services during periods of non-use? To the extent the Commission
continues to require applicants to have activated and made the Wi-Fi
hotspots available, as well as publicized their availability, is
certifying to having taken these steps on the FCC Form 486 prior to
submitting their or their service provider's request(s) for
reimbursement sufficient? Would requiring applicants to certify to
having taken these measures on the request for reimbursement form or
some other form provide better certainty that these actions have been
taken? How else might the Commission ensure that applicants have taken
sufficient measures to make effective use of these E-Rate funded
hotspots and services? Please include examples from current hotspot
lending programs on how non-usage is currently being addressed.
The Commission next seeks comment on ways service providers could
take additional actions to reduce the amount of E-Rate funds being
spent on Wi-Fi hotspots and services that are not being actively used
by the intended users. Should the Commission shorten the period of non-
usage from approximately 90 days and require service providers to
terminate service when there are 30 days of unused services associated
with a particular Wi-Fi hotspot line of service? If not at 60 days,
when should notice to the applicant be made and how? Should the
Commission require additional steps or documentation before allowing an
applicant to restart service on a terminated line? Is there an
appropriate amount of time the applicant should be required to wait to
restart the service? Consistent with the category two budgets,
applicants may file a request to reduce or cancel a funding commitment
in order to use that funding in a future funding year of the budget
cycle. However, if the applicant has service terminated due to non-
usage, should the Commission consider prohibiting them from later
reducing their funding commitment to restore the undisbursed funding to
their hotspot budget? The Commission also seek comment on other billing
paradigms that could make the program more responsive to usage. Should
the Commission consider requiring alternative billing methods, such as
usage-based pricing models, for Wi-Fi hotspot service supported by the
E-Rate program? In effect, this would allow reimbursement from the E-
Rate program
[[Page 67397]]
only for the service that was used, but such an approach would present
new difficulties in determining the amount being requested during the
FCC Form 471 application. If the Commission uses this approach, should
the Commission remove the funding cap for recurring service adopted in
the Order? Why or why not?
While the Commission is requiring that service providers provide
usage reports to applicants at least once per billing cycle, the
Commission also seeks comment on whether it should require submission
of data usage reports during the invoicing process. For example, should
service providers provide the Universal Service Administrative Company
(USAC) with reports when an applicant is using fewer than 25% (or some
other threshold) of the service lines? Recognizing that the format for
these data submissions may also be important to preventing waste and
improving program integrity, what structure should data usage reports
have and what format should they be provided in? Are there ways to make
such data usage reports easier for applicants, and in particular small
applicants without dedicated staff for a hotspot lending program, to
quickly identify the hotspot devices and services that are going
unused? Would it make sense to have the reports identify the number of
lines that went unused during a particular billing cycle and reduce the
reimbursement for each unused line to a nominal amount, such as $3,
that would pay for the continued access to the network that went
unused? Similarly, would additional structure be needed for the
applicant asset inventories to better match the data usage reports and
would that have value? What steps should the Commission take to make
sure the information provided does not include personally identifiable
information or other sensitive information? Should there be a data
usage threshold higher than zero to consider a line used, and if so,
what would that threshold be? Should service providers be required to
offer a simple way to remotely discontinue and reestablish lines when
requested by the applicant? Some libraries reported already having such
a mechanism to stop service to a specific device if it is not being
used; does the size of the school or library impact the feasibility of
implementing such a mechanism for all of the E-Rate funded Wi-Fi
hotspots and services in circulation? Why or why not? The Commission
also seeks comment on the experiences of schools and libraries being
able to discontinue and reestablish lines of services when they request
to do so from their service provider. Are different levels of service
needed depending on the school or library size? Are there provisions
regarding non-usage that could be included in a contract between a
service provider and an applicant to help address these concerns in a
manner that balances the responsibility between the service provider
and applicant? Are there times that an early termination fee for lost
or broken hotspot devices should be permitted to ensure that service
providers are not left responsible for the cost of a broken hotspot?
The Commission seeks comment on these approaches and whether they
would benefit the E-Rate program and reduce the amount of funding spent
on Wi-Fi hotspots and services during periods of non-use. To the extent
applicants and service providers believe burdens would increase under
any of these scenarios, the Commission seeks detailed information on
the potential costs and benefits. What other steps could be taken to
reduce that amount of E-Rate funding disbursed for Wi-Fi hotspots and
services during periods of non-use? Are there other practices the
Commission should adopt to achieve these goals? For instance, should
the E-Rate program reduce and limit the number of service lines or the
quantity of hotspot devices that can be requested in future funding
years based on the applicant's prior funding year data on non-usage?
Would this incentivize applicants to better right-size their E-Rate
supported hotspot lending program? Why or why not?
Relatedly, the Commission seeks further comment on whether to adopt
user access restrictions, such as asking for student credentials, like
a school-issued email and password, or more technical limitations on
who or which devices may connect to the E-Rate-funded Wi-Fi hotspots.
To the extent entities already employ user access restrictions, the
Commission encourages commenters to provide specific information about
the programs they use, the costs they are paying, and the technical
functionalities and/or limitations of such restrictions. In the absence
of adopting restrictions, the Commission also seeks comment on best
practices for user access restrictions. Have library hotspot lending
programs also implemented user access restrictions? If so, do they
differ from school credentialing options? For example, is user access
for Wi-Fi hotspots based on the patron's library card or other library
loaning access mechanism?
Cybersecurity Risk Management. The Commission seeks comment on ways
to encourage cybersecurity best practices and risk management for
schools, libraries, and service providers offering Wi-Fi hotspots
through E-Rate. The Commission adopted the Schools and Libraries
Cybersecurity Pilot Program (Pilot Program) in June 2024 to explore
whether and how to utilize USF support to improve cybersecurity
practices for K-12 schools and libraries. Recognizing the critical
needs of schools and libraries to protect their broadband networks and
sensitive student, school staff, and library patron data, the
Commission seeks comment on how to ensure that using E-Rate support for
Wi-Fi hotspots does not introduce additional vulnerabilities or risks
to cyberattacks. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether
service providers providing Wi-Fi hotspots and service to schools and
libraries in the E-Rate program should be required to implement
cybersecurity and supply chain risk management plans. Service providers
receiving support through the High Cost Enhanced Alternative Connect
America Cost Model (Enhanced A-CAM) program are required to develop and
submit cybersecurity and supply chain risk management plans to USAC and
certify compliance with these requirements. These plans must reflect
the latest version of the NIST Framework for Improving Critical
Infrastructure Cybersecurity and cybersecurity best practices. Should
service providers receiving support for Wi-Fi hotspots be required to
meet the same or similar standards? Are these service providers already
in the practice of maintaining these or similar plans? Why or why not?
Would a certification on the FCC Form 473 (Service Provider Annual
Certification) be sufficient to allay concerns over cybersecurity
vulnerabilities faced by schools and libraries? What are the risks of
allowing third-party Wi-Fi hotspots access to a network? What burdens
would resellers or smaller service providers face in complying with
such requirements?
OPEN Government Data Act. The Commission also seeks comment about
whether information reported to the FCC or to the Administrator
pursuant to the requirements adopted in the Order relating to data
usage reports and asset and service inventories are ``data assets''
potentially subject to the requirements of the OPEN Government Data
Act. The OPEN Government Data Act, requires agencies to make ``public
data assets'' available under an open license and as ``open Government
data assets,'' i.e., in
[[Page 67398]]
machine-readable, open format, unencumbered by use restrictions other
than intellectual property rights, and based on an open standard that
is maintained by a standards organization. This requirement is to be
implemented ``in accordance with guidance by the Director'' of the
Office of Management and Budget.
The Commission tentatively concludes that data usage reports and/or
asset and service inventories provided to it or the Administrator do
not constitute a ``data asset'' as defined in 44 U.S.C. 352(17). A
``data asset'' is defined as ``a collection of data elements or data
sets that may be grouped together,'' and ``data'' as ``recorded
information, regardless of form or the media on which the data is
recorded.'' Each usage report and asset and service inventory is
separate and distinct from one another, and the Commission does not
expect that the information contained in the reports and inventories
could readily be grouped together in any meaningful way. The Commission
tentatively concludes therefore that, in the absence of a standardized
collection form, the proposed collection of data usage reports and
asset and service inventories would not constitute a ``data asset''
subject to the requirements of the OPEN Government Data Act. The
Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
If, however, the Commission proposed collection of data usage
reports and asset and service inventories can be viewed as a ``data
asset,'' it seeks comment on the extent to which such information would
constitute a ``public data asset'' under the OPEN Government Data Act.
A ``public data asset'' is ``a data asset, or part thereof, maintained
by the Federal Government that has been, or may be, released to the
public, including any data asset, or part thereof, subject to
disclosure under [the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)].'' Thus, the
Commission seeks comment on the extent to which the information
contained in these reports and inventories would be protected from
disclosure under the FOIA or as personally identifiable information. If
the information is subject to disclosure under the FOIA, and therefore
something the FCC would be required to publish in a machine-readable
format, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should also require
the information to meet certain requirements to enable that
publication. Should the Commission require that the information be
submitted in machine-readable and structured format to facilitate data
analysis regardless of the extent to which the data may be subject to
the OPEN Government Data Act public availability requirement?
Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion. 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 accessibility, as well as the scope of the Commission's
relevant legal authority.
Procedural Matters
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.
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 FNPRM. Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments
in the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
The E-Rate program will help fund the off-premises use of Wi-Fi
hotspots and services for students, school staff, and library patrons
by funding Wi-Fi hotspots and services for schools and libraries to
establish lending programs. The primary objective of the FNPRM is to
seek comments that will help maintain the success of the Wi-Fi hotspots
lending programs by ensuring there is usage for educational purposes.
In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comments from stakeholders including
schools, libraries, and service providers, to come up with an
administratively feasible method to encourage maximal usage of the Wi-
Fi hotspots and services. The FNPRM requests examples on how non-usage
is being addressed in current hotspot lending programs. The FNPRM
invites comments on how to avoid unfairly burdening either applicants
or service providers, and asks what steps both can take to reduce non-
usage.
For example, in the FNPRM the Commission asks how to safeguard Wi-
Fi hotspots' usage by asking if schools and libraries should have
technical support for users and if they should have a limit on the
lending period before redistributing the hotspots. The FNPRM further
requests comments on usage reports and how schools, libraries, and
providers can use the reports to assist in preventing non-usage. The
FNPRM also asks about certifications to reduce the possibility that E-
Rate funds are going to unuse devices and services. Further, the FNPRM
requests comments on what further actions, providers and schools should
take after the discovery of non-usage. Additionally, the FNPRM seeks
comment on how to ensure that using E-Rate support for Wi-Fi hotspots
does not introduce additional vulnerabilities or risks to cyberattacks.
The information and comments requested in the FNPRM will help
strengthen the integrity of the E-Rate program by ensuring usage of Wi-
Fi hotspots and services.
The proposed actions are authorized pursuant to sections 1 through
4, 201 through 202, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended.
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 Small Business
Administration (SBA).
[[Page 67399]]
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.
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 2022, there were
approximately 530,109 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.
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 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts)
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that
at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
Small entities potentially affected by the rules herein are
Schools, Libraries, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, All Other
Telecommunications, Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite), Wireless Telephony, Wireless Carriers and Service
Providers, Telecommunications Resellers, Local Resellers, Wired
Broadband internet Access Service Providers (Wired ISPs), Wireless
Broadband internet Access Service Providers (Wireless ISPs or WISPs),
internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband), Wireless Telephony, Vendors
of Infrastructure Development or Network Buildout, Telephone Apparatus
Manufacturing, Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing.
The potential rule changes proceeding out of the FNPRM, could
impose some new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements on schools, libraries, service providers,
including small entities. The FNPRM requests comments on how to prevent
non-usage of Wi-Fi hotspots and services funded by the E-Rate program
and the comments receive will help determine what reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements the Commission should
adopt to prevent or reduce non-usage. The FNPRM specifically seeks
comments on data usage reports, and it is possible that schools,
libraries, and service providers, including small entities, could have
additional requirements related to retaining and producing usage
reports and certifications. The FNPRM also seeks comments on
certifications as a measure to help ensure usage prior to
reimbursement. It is also possible that schools, libraries, and service
providers, including small entities, could have new requirements
related to certifications.
Additionally, the FNPRM seeks comments on whether applicants should
be required to limit the lending period to a shorter period and this
may create more recordkeeping, since an increase in the frequency of
redistribution is likely to increase the frequency of recording the
inventory and asset requirements that are mandatory for a loaned
hotspot and service. The FNPRM also seeks comment on whether schools
and libraries must have technical support available to teach users how
to use the Wi-Fi hotspots, and troubleshoot issues as they arise. For
service providers, in addition to possible new requirements with usage
reports, including making the reports transparent and easier for
applicants and the Commission to identify when hotspots are unused,
they may also be required to offer a simple way to remotely discontinue
and reestablish lines when requested by applicants, which may create
more reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Further, applicants and
providers may be required to include provisions regarding non-usage in
their contracts to help address these concerns in a manner that
balances the burden between the provider and applicant. The FNPRM also
seeks comment on whether service providers providing Wi-Fi hotspots and
service to schools and libraries in the E-Rate program should be
required to implement cybersecurity and supply chain risk management
plans.
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 matters upon
which the FNPRM 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 it
identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters for small entities,
including compliance costs and other burdens that may result from
potential changes discussed in the FNPRM. The Commission will ensure
that any reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance burdens are
outweigh by the benefits of protecting the integrity of the E-Rate
program, and by having a successful Wi-Fi hotspot lending program to
meet the educational needs of students, school staff, and library
patrons.
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that could minimize impacts to small entities 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.''
In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on how to ensure that
there is educational usage of the E-Rate supported Wi-Fi hotspots and
services. The Commission also requests comments that considers the
impact on small entities. For example, the Commission seeks comments on
how service providers participating in the E-Rate program for hotspot
lending should be required to provide transparent reporting to
applicants on data usage
[[Page 67400]]
that makes it easy for schools and libraries, and in particular small
applicants without dedicated staff for a hotspot lending program, to
identify the devices that are going unused. In the FNPRM, the
Commission considers alternatives by asking if for the E-Rate program,
it should consider the requirement of alternative billing methods, such
as usage-based pricing models. The FNPRM also requests comments on
whether service providers should be required to offer a simple way to
remotely discontinue and reestablish lines when requested by applicants
and if there are different levels of service needed depending on the
school or library size.
Further, the FNPRM seeks comments on potential costs and benefits
of the proposed rule changes. The Commission expects the information
received in the comments in response to the FNPRM will 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,
while also ensuring usage in the E-Rate funded school and library
hotspot lending programs.
Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules. None.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered, that pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1 through 4, 201-202, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-202,
254, 303(r), and 403, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted
effective September 19, 2024.
It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary shall send a
copy of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-18123 Filed 8-19-24; 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 August 20, 2024.
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.