Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, 17584-17590 [2010-7757]
Download as PDF
17584
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
alphabetically adding commodities to
the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.610 is amended by
revising the introductory text in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) and
■
§ 180.610
residues.
Aminopyralid; tolerances for
(a) * * * (1) Tolerances are established
for residues of the herbicide
aminopyralid, 4-amino-3,6-dichloro-2pyridinecarboxylic acid, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below.
Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by
measuring only free and conjugated
aminopyralid.
Commodity
Parts per million
Corn, field, forage ....................................................................................................
Corn, field, grain ......................................................................................................
Corn, field, stover ....................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
(2) Tolerances are established for
residues of the herbicide aminopyralid,
4-amino-3,6-dichloro-2pyridinecarboxylic acid, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below.
Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by
measuring only aminopyralid.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2010–7749 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[CC Docket No. 02–6; FCC 09–105]
Schools and Libraries Universal
Service Support Mechanism
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) addresses matters related
to the eligibility of products and
services under the schools and libraries
universal service support mechanism,
also known as the E-rate program. First,
in the Report and Order, the
Commission modifies its rules to
expressly include interconnected voice
over Internet protocol (VoIP) and text
messaging as eligible services under the
E-rate program. Second, in the process
of releasing the list of services that will
be eligible for discounts for E-rate
funding year 2010, the Commission
clarifies the E-rate program eligibility of
video on-demand servers, ethernet, web
hosting, wireless local area network
(LAN) controllers, and virtualization
software. It also finds that telephone
broadcast messaging, unbundled
warranties, power distribution units,
softphones, interactive white boards,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:15 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
0.30
0.20
0.20
*
and e-mail archiving are ineligible for
E-rate program funding.
DATES: Effective May 7, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara
Voth, Wireline Competition Bureau,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, (202) 418–7400 or TTY: (202)
418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Report
and Order in CC Docket No. 02–6, FCC
09–105, adopted December 1, 2009, and
released December 2, 2009. The
complete text of this document is
available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Information Center,
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The
document may also be purchased from
the Commission’s duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800)
378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile
(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at
https://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also
available on the Commission’s Web site
at https://www.fcc.gov.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
Synopsis of the Report and Order
I. Introduction
1. In the Report and Order, we
conclude that interconnected VoIP
service is eligible for E-rate support and
should continue to be an eligible service
under the E-rate program. We also
conclude that text messaging is eligible
for E-rate support. In response to the
2010 ESL Public Notice, we clarify the
E-rate program eligibility of video ondemand servers, ethernet, web hosting,
wireless local area network (LAN)
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
controllers, and virtualization software.
We find that telephone broadcast
messaging, unbundled warranties,
power distribution units, softphones,
interactive white boards, and e-mail
archiving are ineligible for E-rate
program funding. Finally, we release the
Eligible Services List (ESL) for E-rate
funding year 2010.
II. Background
2. Under the E-rate program, eligible
schools, libraries, and consortia that
include eligible schools and libraries
may receive discounts for eligible
telecommunications services, Internet
access, and internal connections.
Section 254 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended (the Act), gives the
Commission the authority to designate
‘‘telecommunications services’’ and
certain additional services eligible for
support under the E-rate program. The
Commission may also designate services
eligible for E-rate support as part of its
authority to enhance, to the extent
technically feasible and economically
reasonable, access to advanced
telecommunications and information
services for all public and non-profit
elementary and secondary school
classrooms and libraries.
3. Since the initial implementation of
the E-rate program in 1998, and
consistent with the Commission’s rules
and requirements, USAC has developed
procedures and guidelines to ensure
that E-rate funding is provided only for
eligible services. Initially, the
Commission directed USAC, in
consultation with the Commission, to
determine whether particular services
fell within the eligibility criteria
established under the Act and the
Commission’s rules and policies. USAC
began to update and post to its Web site
on an annual basis a list of services and
products eligible to receive discounts
under the E-rate program, now known
as the ESL. In consultation with the
Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau),
USAC updated the list to reflect any
E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM
07APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
changes in rules that had occurred
during the previous year and to address
issues that arose in the application
review process.
4. On December 23, 2003, the
Commission adopted section 54.522 of
its rules, formalizing the process for
updating the ESL for the E-rate program.
Specifically, under section 54.522 of the
Commission’s rules, the Commission
must seek comment on USAC’s
proposed ESL and issue a public notice
attaching the final ESL for the upcoming
funding year at least 60 days prior to the
opening of the application funding
window for the E-rate program. In its
current form, the ESL is divided into
five main categories—
telecommunications service, Internet
access, internal connections, basic
maintenance of internal connections,
and miscellaneous.
5. In the 2010 ESL Public Notice, the
Bureau sought comment on changes to
the ESL proposed by USAC for funding
year 2010. Comments on the 2010 ESL
Public Notice were due on June 23,
2009, and reply comments were due on
June 30, 2009. In the ESL NPRM,
released in July 2008, the Commission
sought comment on issues related to
eligible services that had been raised by
commenters but had not yet been
resolved through the ESL public notice
and revision process. For example, the
Commission sought comment on the
inclusion of interconnected VoIP service
in the ESL, and whether text messaging,
telephone broadcast messaging, and
other individual services should be
eligible for E-rate support under section
254(c)(3) of the Act. The Commission
also sought comment on which rules, if
any, would need to be amended to
implement any changes made as a result
of the ESL NPRM. Comments on the
ESL NPRM were due on September 18,
2008, and reply comments were due on
October 3, 2008.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
III. Discussion
A. Designation of Additional Supported
Services
6. In this Report and Order, we
modify our rules to expressly include
interconnected VoIP and text messaging
as eligible services under the E-rate
program.
7. Interconnected VoIP We conclude
that we should modify our rules to
expressly include interconnected VoIP
as a service eligible for E-rate support,
and we will continue to fund
interconnected VoIP service under the
E-rate support mechanism. We also
determine that interconnected VoIP
service should be a Priority 1 service
because regardless of its ultimate
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:15 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
regulatory classification, it is defined as
‘‘enabl[ing] real-time, two-way voice
communications,’’ 47 CFR 9.3, and thus
provides basic connectivity akin to
other Priority 1 services. We note,
however, that not all of the components
of an interconnected VoIP service are
eligible for Priority 1 funding. Any
components of an interconnected VoIP
system that would be considered
internal connections would be eligible
for Priority 2 funding only, and any
components of an interconnected VoIP
system that are end-user equipment are
ineligible for funding. We also adopt
USAC’s proposal that interconnected
VoIP be listed in both the
telecommunications and Internet access
categories of the ESL, despite the fact
that the Commission has not yet
determined the regulatory classification
of interconnected VoIP.
8. We find that, pursuant to section
254 of the Act, the Commission has the
authority to include interconnected
VoIP service as an additional service
eligible for E-rate support. We therefore
amend section 54.503 of our rules to
designate interconnected VoIP as a
supported special service. We note that
the Commission has not yet classified
interconnected VoIP service as either a
telecommunications service or an
information service. If interconnected
VoIP service is found to be a
telecommunications service, sections
254(c)(1), (c)(3), and (h)(1)(B) of the Act
provide the Commission with the
authority to provide E-rate support for
all commercially available
telecommunications services. 47 U.S.C.
254(c)(1), (c)(3). If, however,
interconnected VoIP is determined to be
an information service, sections
254(c)(3), (h)(1)(B), and (h)(2) of the Act,
as explained in the Universal Service
First Report and Order, provide the
Commission with the authority to
provide E-rate support for
interconnected VoIP when provided by
both telecommunications carriers and
non-telecommunications carriers
because such support will ‘‘enhance
* * * access to advanced
telecommunications and information
services’’ for schools and libraries. 47
U.S.C. 254(c)(3), (h)(1)(B), (h)(2)(A). No
matter how interconnected VoIP is
ultimately classified, we find that the
Commission has statutory authority to
include it as an eligible supported
service. Therefore, we amend section
54.517 of our rules to permit
interconnected VoIP to be provided by
non-telecommunications carriers.
9. Furthermore, we agree with
commenters that the permanent
inclusion of interconnected VoIP service
increases the options available to
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17585
schools and libraries to encourage
meaningful communications among
parents, teachers, and school and library
administrators. Indeed, because
interconnected VoIP is increasingly
used to replace analog voice service,
funding interconnected VoIP service is
consistent with the concept of
competitive neutrality, which is the
principle of treating similarly situated
services in the same manner for E-rate
funding purposes, as mandated by the
Commission. We also agree with
commenters that the inclusion of
interconnected VoIP service as an
eligible service allows schools and
libraries to benefit from the same cost
efficiencies and service features that
have led many consumers and
businesses to choose this technology.
10. We also sought comment on
whether interconnected VoIP service
should remain classified in the
miscellaneous service category, as it has
been in previous ESLs. As proposed by
USAC in its annual ESL submission, we
conclude that interconnected VoIP
service should be listed in both the
telecommunications and Internet access
categories to help minimize applicant
confusion noted by commenters. We
clarify that we are not, by this action,
ultimately determining that
interconnected VoIP is either a
telecommunications service or an
Internet access service. Rather, we put
interconnected VoIP in both of those
ESL categories because interconnected
VoIP can be provided by both
telecommunications service providers
or non-telecommunications service
providers. Because of this change, it will
no longer be necessary to list
interconnected VoIP in the
miscellaneous category of the ESL. We
believe this change will also clarify that
applicants can apply for and receive Erate funding for interconnected VoIP
service provided by either a
telecommunications service provider or
an Internet access service provider. We
encourage applicants soliciting bids for
interconnected VoIP services to post for
the services in both categories to expand
the number of service providers that can
bid on the services sought. Consistent
with USAC’s recommendation, we
clarify that applicants are not required
to prepare a technology plan if they are
seeking discounts only for
interconnected VoIP. Thus, we amend
section 54.504(b) of our rules to make
clear that no technology plan is needed
if applicants are applying only for
interconnected VoIP.
11. We also agree with Funds for
Learning that any interconnected VoIP
hardware that does not meet the test for
Priority 1 services in the Tennessee
E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM
07APR1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
17586
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Order should be considered Priority 2
internal connections and should be
ineligible for Priority 1 funding. In the
Tennessee Order, the Commission
stated that a service is considered a
component of internal connections if it
is necessary to ‘‘transport information
within one or more instructional
buildings of a single school campus.’’
The Commission also stated that it was
reasonable to presume that if facilities
are located on an applicant’s premises,
then such facilities are necessary to
transport information within one or
more buildings of the school campus,
and are thus a Priority 2 internal
connections service and not part of an
end-to-end Internet access service, i.e., a
Priority 1 service. This presumption can
be rebutted with evidence that the
applicant does not own or have
exclusive use of the facilities. Thus,
leased VoIP telephone systems will
need to be evaluated in accordance with
the conditions in the Tennessee Order,
to determine whether they should be
eligible as Priority 2 internal
connections only or if some portion of
the system would be eligible as Priority
1. For example, only the lease of a single
basic terminating component is eligible
as a Priority 1 service under E-rate and
this may include a VoIP gateway device
located on the applicant’s premises, but
hubs, routers and switches are not
considered basic terminating
components and would be subject to the
on-premise Priority 1 equipment
conditions set forth in the Tennessee
Order.
12. In the ESL NPRM, we also sought
comment on whether applicants
requesting funding for interconnected
VoIP service as an Internet access
service must comply with and certify to
requirements identified in the
Children’s Internet Protection Act
(CIPA). 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(5), (l). Enacted
in 2001, CIPA imposed requirements on
schools and libraries ‘‘having computers
with Internet access’’ and prohibits
schools and libraries from receiving
discounted services if those
requirements are not met. 47 U.S.C.
254(h)(5), (h)(6). This prohibition is not
applicable to a school or library that
receives discounted services ‘‘only for
purposes other than the provision of
Internet access, Internet service, or
internal connections.’’ 47 U.S.C.
254(h)(5)(A)(ii), (h)(6)(A)(ii). Thus, the
Commission determined that schools or
libraries receiving only discounted
telecommunications services were not
required to comply with CIPA.
Consistent with the majority of
commenters’ arguments, we conclude
that applicants requesting funds for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:15 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
interconnected VoIP service alone are
not required to comply with and certify
to CIPA requirements. While
interconnected VoIP service may
traverse the Internet, interconnected
VoIP service, by definition, is not used
to provide an Internet access service,
Internet service, or internal connections.
47 CFR 9.3. Therefore, we find that
CIPA compliance is not required for
applicants that receive funding for
interconnected VoIP service. Applicants
seeking support for interconnected VoIP
service that also seek support for
Internet access, Internet service, or
internal connections would certify their
CIPA compliance separately for the
Internet access.
13. Text Messaging. We find that we
should modify our rules to include text
messaging, known as short message
service (SMS), as a service eligible for Erate support. We agree with commenters
who noted that text messaging is similar
to other E-rate-eligible services used by
applicants to communicate, such as email and paging services. Moreover, we
believe our decision to add text
messaging is analogous to our decision
in the Schools and Libraries Second
Report and Order to add voice mail
service to the list of E-rate-eligible
services. Thus, for similar reasons, we
designate text messaging as a service
eligible for E-rate support. We note that
we include text messaging as an eligible
service irrespective of whether text
message is ultimately categorized as a
telecommunications service or an
information service. This service will be
categorized in the ESL in the
telecommunications service category as
a component of telephone service
because text messaging has generally
been available in conjunction with
wireless telephone service, and the
charges for text messaging are typically
bundled with wireless telephone service
or the separate charges for the text
messaging service appear on the same
bill as the telephone service. We
therefore amend section 54.503 of our
rules to designate text messaging as a
supported special service.
14. We remind applicants that text
messaging is eligible for E-rate support
when used for educational purposes
only. The Commission had established
a presumption that activities that occur
in a library or classroom or on library
or school property are integral,
immediate, and proximate to the
education of students or the provision of
library services to library patrons. We
caution applicants that for purposes of
the E-rate program, eligible text
messaging would not include
applications, software or other special
features that, for example, are used to
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
facilitate the mass distribution of text
messages, or the creation or
management of distribution groups for
text messaging.
B. Clarifications Regarding the
Eligibility for Support of Services in the
Funding Year 2010 ESL
15. We also release the ESL for E-rate
funding year 2010 and make findings
about the particular changes to the ESL
recommended by USAC. Specifically,
we clarify the eligibility of video ondemand servers, ethernet, Web hosting,
wireless LAN controllers, VoIP-related
services, and virtualization software. We
also find that telephone broadcast
messaging, unbundled warranties,
power distribution units, softphones,
interactive white boards, and e-mail
archiving are ineligible for E-rate
program funding.
16. Video On-Demand Servers.
Although USAC had proposed to make
‘‘video on-demand servers’’ ineligible in
their entirety, we clarify that applicants
can continue to receive E-rate discounts
as internal connections for the portion
of a video on-demand server that
enables the transport of video to the
classroom or parts of a library. The
portion of a video on-demand server
that enables the storage of video or other
content, however, would remain
ineligible. To clarify the eligibility
status of a video on-demand server, we
add the term ‘‘video content storage’’ to
the list of ineligible storage components
on the ESL. This should more clearly
delineate the portion of a video ondemand server that is ineligible for
discounts. Currently, applicants are
using servers that house video for
various purposes, including
transporting information over a wide
area network (WAN) or LAN to
classrooms from a central server. We
note that there may be video on-demand
servers that are primarily dedicated to
the storage of video and other content
and the cost-allocation used by the
manufacturer should accurately reflect
the true use of the server. We also
caution applicants that duplicative
products or services are ineligible. If
applicants are using other products or
services to transport video or
information throughout their school or
library buildings, the portion of a video
on-demand server that also provides
this capability will be considered
duplicative and ineligible.
17. Ethernet. We clarify that ethernet
is an eligible digital transmission
technology in the telecommunications
funding category of the ESL. Ethernet
technology provides a network that
connects computers. Although
traditionally associated with local area
E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM
07APR1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
networks, technology has evolved such
that ethernet networks can span large
distances and can provide connections
from within an eligible school or library
to other locations beyond the school or
library. Therefore, we find that for
purposes of the E-rate program, ethernet
service is eligible in the
telecommunications funding category.
We agree with commenters who state
that adding ethernet to the ESL ‘‘reflects
the evolution of telecommunications
technologies that are commercially
available and is a clarification of
previous eligibility.’’ We also note that
although it was not specifically listed in
the ESL for funding year 2009, ethernet
is a type of digital transmission service
that has been eligible for E-rate
discounts when purchased as a Priority
1 telecommunications service.
18. Web hosting. We clarify that web
pages protected by a username and
password are eligible for funding as part
of web hosting services. The fact that a
school or library restricts access to all or
part of its Web site to certain users—
e.g., school administrators, teachers,
librarians and students—does not
render the service ineligible for E-rate
funds. Web hosting has been on the ESL
since funding year 2004, as Internet
access. We emphasize that an eligible
Web hosting service is limited to
hosting a school or library’s Web site—
software applications, end-user file
storage, and content editing features are
still ineligible components of a web
hosting service. Such ineligible web
hosting features would include, but
would not be limited to, the posting of
content created by third party vendors,
any type of interactive application
feature that would allow for blogging,
and any features involving data input or
retrieval including searching of
databases for grades, student attendance
files, or other reports. We caution
applicants that they must cost-allocate
these types of ineligible features. The
clarification to allow funding for web
pages protected by a username and
password was intended to allow school
administrators, parents, students, and
library employees to view web pages
that, may, for various reasons, need to
be restricted from viewing by the rest of
the public. This clarification was not
intended to allow applicants to obtain
funding for additional web hostingrelated applications and features beyond
the service that enables a school or
library to have hosted web pages,
including any application software or
features that may be required to
maintain password protected Web
pages.
19. Wireless LAN Controllers. We
agree with USAC that wireless LAN
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:15 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
controllers should be specifically listed
in the ESL as eligible internal
connections under the data distribution
category. A wireless LAN controller is a
device that is a central component of a
wireless network solution and that
helps to manage the large-scale
deployment of a wireless network. In its
proposed changes to the ESL for E-rate
funding year 2010, USAC proposes to
include a definition of a wireless LAN
controller as a component that is used
in conjunction with access points to
create a wireless local area network.
USAC defines an ‘‘access point’’ as a
base station in a wireless LAN and
states that access points are typically
stand-alone devices that may plug into
an ethernet hub or server or may
provide a repeater function for wireless
networks. When a school or library is
relying on a wireless network solution,
wireless LAN controllers, in
conjunction with access points, are
necessary for the delivery of information
all the way to the classrooms of the
school or rooms of the library. Under
the E-rate program, internal connections
components are those that are necessary
to ‘‘transport information within one or
more instructional buildings of a single
school campus or within one or more
non-administrative buildings that
comprise a single library branch.’’
Wireless LAN controllers, therefore, are
eligible for support under the E-rate
program as internal connections.
Applicants have been receiving support
for wireless LAN controllers as eligible
internal connections and this change to
the ESL is merely a clarification of the
service’s existing funding status.
20. Interconnected VoIP-Related
Software. We agree with USAC that we
should clarify that funding for user
licenses for VoIP systems are eligible
server based software and can be
requested in the internal connections
funding category. Interconnected VoIP
user licenses are necessary for the
utilization of the VoIP system. They are
similar to client access licenses for
eligible software products, except that
they are specific to VoIP systems. Client
access licenses are currently eligible for
E-rate funding. Commenters agree with
the proposed clarification, noting that
applicants have received funding for
these services in prior funding years.
21. Virtualization Software. We agree
with USAC that virtualization software
is eligible for E-rate support as internal
connections. As stated above, under the
E-rate program, internal connections
components are those that are necessary
to ‘‘transport information within one or
more instructional buildings of a single
school campus or within one or more
non-administrative buildings that
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17587
comprise a single library branch.’’
USAC’s draft ESL for funding year 2010
states that virtualization software allows
for the creation of multiple virtual
servers on a single server, essentially
allowing the work of multiple servers to
be performed on one server. We agree
with Funds for Learning that
virtualization software should be
eligible for E-rate funding when it is
used for eligible server functions.
Moreover, one of the internal
connections for which the E-rate
program provides discounts is operating
system software, which enables the
basic operations of a computer system
or other electronic device. We find that
virtualization software is a type of
operating system software. Applicants
can use virtualization software to
transport information within its school
or library, and, in so doing, would be
using a single server to perform the
tasks of what would usually take
multiple servers. Thus, virtualization
software may be a cost-effective
technology for applicants and is eligible
for E-rate funding. If applicants also use
virtualization software for functions that
are ineligible for E-rate support, such as
archiving, functions that support
ineligible applications, or network
management, the applicants must
perform a cost allocation to remove the
ineligible functions from their E-rate
funding requests.
22. Telephone Broadcast Messaging.
We agree with USAC that telephone
broadcast messaging should not be
added to the ESL because we find that
it does not fit within any of the current
categories of supported services. A
broadcast messaging service is one that
can call hundreds or thousands of
recipients and play a pre-recorded
message from school administrators
about information including, but not
limited to, weather delays or closings,
school absences, or child safety issues.
Broadcast messaging has been described
by commenters as an add-on to voice
mail service and an application riding
on top of a service provider’s
telecommunications infrastructure.
Only a few categories of software are
eligible for E-rate funding, however,
including operating system software, email software, and software for a serverbased, shared voice mail system. While
voice mail has been designated as an
eligible service, and the E-rate program
pays for the software for a server-based
shared voice mail system, the record in
the ESL NPRM proceeding established
that telephone broadcast messaging is
an ‘‘add-on to voice mail’’ service and
not software for voice mail itself.
Therefore, we find that broadcast
E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM
07APR1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
17588
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
messaging consists of applications or
features that do not fit into any of the
current categories of supported services
and thus, should not be added to the list
of software applications that are
currently eligible for support as internal
connections. Moreover, we find that it
would not be in the public interest to
add telephone broadcast messaging to
the ESL when requests for E-rate
funding consistently exceed the funding
cap. While we believe that many school
districts find telephone broadcast
messaging a useful service, we do not
believe it is essential to the educational
purposes of schools and libraries, and
funding this service may have an
adverse effect on funds available for
other already eligible services.
23. Unbundled Warranties. We find
that unbundled warranties are not
services eligible for E-rate discounts as
basic maintenance of internal
connections. In its proposed changes to
the ESL, USAC proposes to add
unbundled warranty to the basic
maintenance category of the ESL and
defines ‘‘unbundled warranty’’ as a
separately priced warranty allowing for
broken equipment to be fixed or, in the
event that the problem is beyond repair,
replaced. The Commission has found
that basic maintenance services are
eligible for universal service support as
Priority 2 internal connections service
if, but for the maintenance at issue, the
internal connection would not function
and serve its intended purpose with the
degree of reliability ordinarily provided
in the marketplace to entities receiving
such services. We do not add
unbundled warranties to the ESL at this
time because we find that a warranty
may be duplicative of an applicant’s
maintenance agreement or contract,
which is eligible for E-rate discounts. To
avoid the potential waste of E-rate
resources, we decline to allow
applicants to receive E-rate discounts
for duplicative unbundled warranties.
Moreover, the current ESL states that
basic maintenance is eligible for
discount only if it is a component of a
maintenance agreement or contract for
eligible components. An unbundled
warranty would not be a component of
a maintenance agreement or contract for
eligible components. Therefore, we find
that an unbundled warranty is not
eligible for E-rate funds as basic
maintenance.
24. Power Distribution Units. We
agree with USAC that the ESL should be
updated to clearly state that power
distribution units are not eligible for Erate support as internal connections.
USAC proposes to define a ‘‘power
distribution unit’’ as a power strip
designed for data centers or racks with
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:15 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
greater capacity and features than a
power strip, and a ‘‘power strip’’ as a
group of sockets that allow for multiple
power cords to plug into a single device.
Power strips have not previously been
eligible for E-rate funding and, because
a power distribution unit is merely a
type of power strip with additional
capacities and features, we find that it
is also ineligible for E-rate program
funds.
25. Softphones. We agree with
USAC’s proposal to clarify in the ESL
that softphones are software that is
ineligible for E-rate funding. The
Commission has approved operating
system software, e-mail software, and
software for a server-based, shared voice
mail system as eligible software under
the internal connections funding
category for E-rate. USAC proposes to
define a softphone as end-user
application software that allows users
the use of a personal computer’s
microphone and speakers to make
telephone calls in place of a physical
end-user telephone. This type of
application software is unlike the types
of software the Commission has
previously approved for E-rate funding
and, as commenters note, softphones
perform the same functions as physical
desktop telephones, which are end-user
equipment and are not eligible for E-rate
funding.
26. Interactive White Boards. We
agree with USAC and commenters that
the ESL should clarify that interactive
white boards are end-user equipment
that is ineligible for E-rate funding. Enduser equipment, such as desktop
telephones, personal computers, fax
machines, and modems, for example, is
not eligible for E-rate discounts. In its
draft ESL for funding year 2010, USAC
defines an ‘‘interactive white board’’ as
a device that allows end-users to display
information with a vast array of
interactive features. We find, therefore,
that interactive white boards are enduser equipment that is not eligible for Erate funding.
27. E-mail Archiving. We agree with
USAC’s proposal to clarify in the ESL
that e-mail archiving is an ineligible
component of an e-mail service. In
addition, we agree with USAC’s
clarification to the draft ESL for funding
year 2010 that, for purposes of E-rate
support, storage products may be used
for eligible e-mail files but not for e-mail
archiving. USAC’s draft ESL for funding
year 2010 defines e-mail archiving as a
form of electronic recordkeeping, often
compressing e-mail files to make
available greater in-box space. For
example, when e-mail is archived to
reduce in-box size, reduce hard drive
space, and retain records for future
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
retrieval, it constitutes the storage of
end-user files and is ineligible for E-rate
discounts. Although E-rate eligible email services can include a short-term
storage component that enables the user
to view current e-mails, any long-term
storage service is ineligible for E-rate
discounts and we agree with USAC that
this distinction should be made clear to
applicants in the 2010 ESL.
Procedural Matters
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
28. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 603, requires that an
agency prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis for notice-and-comment
rulemaking proceedings, unless the
agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not,
if promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.’’ See 5 U.S.C.
605(b). The RFA generally defines
‘‘small entity’’ as having the same
meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’
‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction.’’ 5 U.S.C.
601(6). In addition, the term ‘‘small
business’’ has the same meaning as the
term ‘‘small business concern’’ under the
Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A
‘‘small business concern’’ is one which:
(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).
15 U.S.C. 632.
29. In the report and order, we modify
our rules to expressly include
interconnected voice over Internet
protocol (VoIP) and text messaging as
eligible services in our rules governing
the E-rate program. We also release the
list of services that will be eligible for
discounts for E-rate funding year 2010.
This Eligible Services List (ESL) is
released on an annual basis to enable
school and library applicants and other
affected entities to determine the
services and products that are eligible
for E-rate discounts. In the report and
order we add services to the ESL but do
not remove any services from the list.
Thus, the only changes made in our
report and order result in the ability of
schools and libraries to seek E-rate
discounts for more services than were
available to them in the prior funding
year. This means that the rule revisions
will result in a positive net impact on
small entities. Therefore, we certify that
the requirements of the report and order
will have no significant economic
impact.
30. The Commission will send a copy
of the report and order, including a copy
E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM
07APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
of this Final Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, in a report to Congress
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In
addition, the report and order (or
summary thereof) and this final
certification will be published in the
Federal Register, and will be sent to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S.
Small Business Administration. See 5
U.S.C. 605(b).
Paperwork Reduction
31. This report and order does not
contain proposed information
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it
does not contain any new or modified
‘‘information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees,’’ pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
sections 54.503, 54.507, and 54.517 of
the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 54.503,
54.507 and 54.517, is amended,
effective May 7, 2010.
36. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this report and order, including the
Final Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
needed because the applicant is
applying for voice mail, interconnected
voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), or
basic local, cellular, PCS, or long
distance telephone service only.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 54.507 is amended by
revising paragraphs (g) introductory
text, (g)(1)introductory text, (g)(1)(i)
through (iii) (the note remains
unchanged) to read as follows:
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54
*
Communications common carriers,
Health facilities, Infants and children,
Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools,
Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
■
Ex Parte Presentations
33. These matters shall be treated as
a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 through
1.1216. Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentations must contain summaries
of the substance of the presentations
and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one or two
sentence description of the views and
arguments presented is generally
required. 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2). Other
requirements pertaining to oral and
written presentations are set forth in
section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s
rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Congressional Review Act
32. The Commission will send a copy
of this Report and Order [CC Docket No.
02–6; FCC 09–105] in a report to
Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 205,
214, and 254 unless otherwise noted.
Ordering Clauses
34. It is ordered, that pursuant to the
authority contained in sections 1
through 4, 201–205, 254, 303(r), and 403
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201
through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403, this
report and order is adopted.
35. It is further ordered, that pursuant
to the authority contained in sections 1
through 4, 201–205, 254, 303(r), and 403
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201
through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:15 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
17589
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as
follows:
PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE
1. The authority citation for part 54
continues to read as follows:
■
2. Section 54.503 is revised to read as
follows:
■
§ 54.503
Other supported special services.
For the purposes of this subpart, other
supported special services provided by
telecommunications carriers include
voice mail, interconnected voice over
Internet protocol (VoIP), text messaging,
Internet access, and installation and
maintenance of internal connections in
addition to all reasonable charges that
are incurred by taking such services,
such as state and federal taxes. Charges
for termination liability, penalty
surcharges, and other charges not
included in the cost of taking such
services shall not be covered by the
universal service support mechanisms.
■ 3. Section 54.504 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read as
follows:
§ 54.504
Requests for services.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) The technology plan(s) has/have
been approved by a state or other
authorized body; the technology plan(s)
will be approved by a state or other
authorized body; or no technology plan
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 54.507
Cap.
*
*
*
*
(g) Rules of priority. The
Administrator shall act in accordance
with paragraph (g)(1) of this section
with respect to applicants that file an
FCC Form 471, as described in
§ 54.504(c) of this part, when a filing
period described in paragraph (c) of this
section is in effect. The Administrator
shall act in accordance with paragraph
(g)(2) of this section with respect to
applicants that file an FCC Form 471, as
described in § 54.504(c) of this part, at
all times other than within a filing
period described in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(1) When the filing period described
in paragraph (c) of this section closes,
the Administrator shall calculate the
total demand for support submitted by
applicants during the filing period. If
total demand exceeds the total support
available for that funding year, the
Administrator shall take the following
steps:
(i) The Administrator shall first
calculate the demand for services listed
under the telecommunications and
Internet access categories on the eligible
services list for all discount levels, as
determined by the schools and libraries
discount matrix in § 54.505(c). These
services shall receive first priority for
the available funding.
(ii) The Administrator shall then
calculate the amount of available
funding remaining after providing
support for the telecommunications and
Internet access categories for all
discount levels. The Administrator shall
allocate the remaining funds to the
requests for support for internal
connections, beginning with the most
economically disadvantaged schools
and libraries, as determined by the
schools and libraries discount matrix in
§ 54.505(c) of this part. Schools and
libraries eligible for a 90 percent
discount shall receive first priority for
the remaining funds, and those funds
will be applied to their requests for
internal connections.
(iii) To the extent that funds remain
after the allocation described in
§§ 54.507(g)(1)(i) and (ii), the
E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM
07APR1
17590
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Administrator shall next allocate funds
toward the requests for internal
connections submitted by schools and
libraries eligible for an 80 percent
discount, then for a 70 percent discount,
and shall continue committing funds for
internal connections in the same
manner to the applicants at each
descending discount level until there
are no funds remaining.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 54.517 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
49 CFR Part 571
I. Background
A. Final Rule Upgrading FMVSS No. 216
B. Challenge by NTEA
C. Consent Motion To Stay Briefing
Schedule
II. Today’s Document and Related Actions
III. Multi-Stage Vehicles and the Multi-Stage
Certification Scheme
A. Multi-Stage Vehicles
B. Safety Standards and Certification
C. 2005 and 2006 Final Rules on
Certification of Vehicles Built in Two or
More Stages
IV. Multi-Stage Issues in the Rulemaking To
Upgrade FMVSS No. 216
A. FMVSS No. 216 Prior to the Upgrade
B. The Proposed Rule
C. Public Comments
D. May 2009 Final Rule
V. Further Response to Comments Regarding
Multi-Stage Vehicles
A. Introduction
B. The Current Certification Scheme Is Not
an Unlawful Delegation of Agency
Authority
C. Current IVDs Concerning FMVSS No.
216 are Workable
D. Final-Stage Manufacturers Can Certify
Their Vehicles Built on Chassis-Cabs as
Being Compliant With FMVSS No. 216a
E. In General, IVDs Are Workable
F. NHTSA Provided a Testing Alternative,
FMVSS No. 220
G. There Is Little Cost for Multi-Stage
Manufacturers To Comply With FMVSS
No. 216a
H. Conclusion
[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0093]
I. Background
RIN 2127–AG51
A. Final Rule Upgrading FMVSS No.
216
On May 12, 2009, as part of a
comprehensive plan for reducing the
serious risk of rollover crashes and the
risk of death and serious injury in those
crashes, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register (74 FR 22348) a final
rule substantially upgrading Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. The
upgraded standard is designated FMVSS
No. 216a.
First, for the vehicles previously
subject to the standard, i.e., passenger
cars and multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses with a Gross
Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 2,722
kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, the
rule doubled the amount of force the
vehicle’s roof structure must withstand
in the specified test, from 1.5 times the
vehicle’s unloaded weight to 3.0 times
the vehicle’s unloaded weight. We note
that this value is sometimes referred to
as the strength-to-weight ratio (SWR),
e.g., a SWR of 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and so forth.
Second, the rule extended the
applicability of the standard so that it
will also apply to vehicles with a GVWR
§ 54.517 Services provided by nontelecommunications carriers.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Supported services. Nontelecommunications carriers shall be
eligible for universal service support
under this subpart for providing
interconnected voice over Internet
protocol (VoIP), voice mail, Internet
access, and installation and
maintenance of internal connections.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2010–7757 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Roof Crush Resistance
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule; further response to
comments.
SUMMARY: In May 2009, NHTSA
published a final rule that upgraded the
agency’s safety standard on roof crush
resistance. This document provides a
further response to comments submitted
by the National Truck Equipment
Association (NTEA) during that
rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, you may call
Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, telephone
202–366–4801. For legal issues, you
may call J. Edward Glancy, NHTSA
Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202–
366–2992. You may send mail to these
officials at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:15 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000
pounds), but not greater than 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds). The rule
established a force requirement of 1.5
times the vehicle’s unloaded weight for
these newly included vehicles.
Third, the rule required all of the
above vehicles to meet the specified
force requirements in a two-sided test,
instead of a single-sided test. For the
two-sided test, the same vehicle must
meet the force requirements when tested
first on one side and then on the other
side of the vehicle.
Fourth, the rule established a new
requirement for maintenance of
headroom, i.e., survival space, during
testing in addition to the existing limit
on the amount of roof crush. The rule
also included a number of special
provisions, including ones related to
leadtime, to address the needs of multistage manufacturers, alterers, and small
volume manufacturers.
B. Challenge by NTEA
NTEA filed a petition for review of
the May 2009 final rule in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit. That organization had
submitted comments during the
rulemaking opposing the agency’s
proposed revisions with respect to
multi-stage vehicles.
C. Consent Motion To Stay Briefing
Schedule
NHTSA filed with the Court a motion
for a stay of the briefing schedule. The
agency stated that it believed the Court’s
consideration of the challenge by NTEA
would be facilitated by a fuller response
to the comments that organization had
submitted during the rulemaking, which
would permit both NTEA and the Court
to more fully address the agency’s
rationale. NHTSA also noted that
petitions for reconsideration of the rule
were pending before the agency. NTEA
consented to the motion and the Court
granted a six-month stay of the briefing
schedule on October 2, 2009.
II. Today’s Document and Related
Actions
In this document, we provide a fuller
response to comments submitted by
NTEA on our proposal to upgrade
FMVSS No. 216.
We are also publishing two separate
documents related to the May 2009 final
rule. One is a response to petitions for
reconsideration of that rule. The other is
a correcting rule. The correcting rule
incorporates a provision that was
discussed in the preamble but
inadvertently omitted from the
regulatory text. As explained in the
preamble, the agency decided to
E:\FR\FM\07APR1.SGM
07APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17584-17590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7757]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[CC Docket No. 02-6; FCC 09-105]
Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) addresses matters related to the eligibility of products
and services under the schools and libraries universal service support
mechanism, also known as the E-rate program. First, in the Report and
Order, the Commission modifies its rules to expressly include
interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) and text messaging
as eligible services under the E-rate program. Second, in the process
of releasing the list of services that will be eligible for discounts
for E-rate funding year 2010, the Commission clarifies the E-rate
program eligibility of video on-demand servers, ethernet, web hosting,
wireless local area network (LAN) controllers, and virtualization
software. It also finds that telephone broadcast messaging, unbundled
warranties, power distribution units, softphones, interactive white
boards, and e-mail archiving are ineligible for E-rate program funding.
DATES: Effective May 7, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara Voth, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202) 418-7400 or
TTY: (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Report and Order in CC Docket No. 02-6, FCC 09-105, adopted December 1,
2009, and released December 2, 2009. The complete text of this document
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased
from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing,
Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898,
or via the Internet at https://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on
the Commission's Web site at https://www.fcc.gov.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Synopsis of the Report and Order
I. Introduction
1. In the Report and Order, we conclude that interconnected VoIP
service is eligible for E-rate support and should continue to be an
eligible service under the E-rate program. We also conclude that text
messaging is eligible for E-rate support. In response to the 2010 ESL
Public Notice, we clarify the E-rate program eligibility of video on-
demand servers, ethernet, web hosting, wireless local area network
(LAN) controllers, and virtualization software. We find that telephone
broadcast messaging, unbundled warranties, power distribution units,
softphones, interactive white boards, and e-mail archiving are
ineligible for E-rate program funding. Finally, we release the Eligible
Services List (ESL) for E-rate funding year 2010.
II. Background
2. Under the E-rate program, eligible schools, libraries, and
consortia that include eligible schools and libraries may receive
discounts for eligible telecommunications services, Internet access,
and internal connections. Section 254 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the Act), gives the Commission the authority to
designate ``telecommunications services'' and certain additional
services eligible for support under the E-rate program. The Commission
may also designate services eligible for E-rate support as part of its
authority to enhance, to the extent technically feasible and
economically reasonable, access to advanced telecommunications and
information services for all public and non-profit elementary and
secondary school classrooms and libraries.
3. Since the initial implementation of the E-rate program in 1998,
and consistent with the Commission's rules and requirements, USAC has
developed procedures and guidelines to ensure that E-rate funding is
provided only for eligible services. Initially, the Commission directed
USAC, in consultation with the Commission, to determine whether
particular services fell within the eligibility criteria established
under the Act and the Commission's rules and policies. USAC began to
update and post to its Web site on an annual basis a list of services
and products eligible to receive discounts under the E-rate program,
now known as the ESL. In consultation with the Wireline Competition
Bureau (Bureau), USAC updated the list to reflect any
[[Page 17585]]
changes in rules that had occurred during the previous year and to
address issues that arose in the application review process.
4. On December 23, 2003, the Commission adopted section 54.522 of
its rules, formalizing the process for updating the ESL for the E-rate
program. Specifically, under section 54.522 of the Commission's rules,
the Commission must seek comment on USAC's proposed ESL and issue a
public notice attaching the final ESL for the upcoming funding year at
least 60 days prior to the opening of the application funding window
for the E-rate program. In its current form, the ESL is divided into
five main categories--telecommunications service, Internet access,
internal connections, basic maintenance of internal connections, and
miscellaneous.
5. In the 2010 ESL Public Notice, the Bureau sought comment on
changes to the ESL proposed by USAC for funding year 2010. Comments on
the 2010 ESL Public Notice were due on June 23, 2009, and reply
comments were due on June 30, 2009. In the ESL NPRM, released in July
2008, the Commission sought comment on issues related to eligible
services that had been raised by commenters but had not yet been
resolved through the ESL public notice and revision process. For
example, the Commission sought comment on the inclusion of
interconnected VoIP service in the ESL, and whether text messaging,
telephone broadcast messaging, and other individual services should be
eligible for E-rate support under section 254(c)(3) of the Act. The
Commission also sought comment on which rules, if any, would need to be
amended to implement any changes made as a result of the ESL NPRM.
Comments on the ESL NPRM were due on September 18, 2008, and reply
comments were due on October 3, 2008.
III. Discussion
A. Designation of Additional Supported Services
6. In this Report and Order, we modify our rules to expressly
include interconnected VoIP and text messaging as eligible services
under the E-rate program.
7. Interconnected VoIP We conclude that we should modify our rules
to expressly include interconnected VoIP as a service eligible for E-
rate support, and we will continue to fund interconnected VoIP service
under the E-rate support mechanism. We also determine that
interconnected VoIP service should be a Priority 1 service because
regardless of its ultimate regulatory classification, it is defined as
``enabl[ing] real-time, two-way voice communications,'' 47 CFR 9.3, and
thus provides basic connectivity akin to other Priority 1 services. We
note, however, that not all of the components of an interconnected VoIP
service are eligible for Priority 1 funding. Any components of an
interconnected VoIP system that would be considered internal
connections would be eligible for Priority 2 funding only, and any
components of an interconnected VoIP system that are end-user equipment
are ineligible for funding. We also adopt USAC's proposal that
interconnected VoIP be listed in both the telecommunications and
Internet access categories of the ESL, despite the fact that the
Commission has not yet determined the regulatory classification of
interconnected VoIP.
8. We find that, pursuant to section 254 of the Act, the Commission
has the authority to include interconnected VoIP service as an
additional service eligible for E-rate support. We therefore amend
section 54.503 of our rules to designate interconnected VoIP as a
supported special service. We note that the Commission has not yet
classified interconnected VoIP service as either a telecommunications
service or an information service. If interconnected VoIP service is
found to be a telecommunications service, sections 254(c)(1), (c)(3),
and (h)(1)(B) of the Act provide the Commission with the authority to
provide E-rate support for all commercially available
telecommunications services. 47 U.S.C. 254(c)(1), (c)(3). If, however,
interconnected VoIP is determined to be an information service,
sections 254(c)(3), (h)(1)(B), and (h)(2) of the Act, as explained in
the Universal Service First Report and Order, provide the Commission
with the authority to provide E-rate support for interconnected VoIP
when provided by both telecommunications carriers and non-
telecommunications carriers because such support will ``enhance * * *
access to advanced telecommunications and information services'' for
schools and libraries. 47 U.S.C. 254(c)(3), (h)(1)(B), (h)(2)(A). No
matter how interconnected VoIP is ultimately classified, we find that
the Commission has statutory authority to include it as an eligible
supported service. Therefore, we amend section 54.517 of our rules to
permit interconnected VoIP to be provided by non-telecommunications
carriers.
9. Furthermore, we agree with commenters that the permanent
inclusion of interconnected VoIP service increases the options
available to schools and libraries to encourage meaningful
communications among parents, teachers, and school and library
administrators. Indeed, because interconnected VoIP is increasingly
used to replace analog voice service, funding interconnected VoIP
service is consistent with the concept of competitive neutrality, which
is the principle of treating similarly situated services in the same
manner for E-rate funding purposes, as mandated by the Commission. We
also agree with commenters that the inclusion of interconnected VoIP
service as an eligible service allows schools and libraries to benefit
from the same cost efficiencies and service features that have led many
consumers and businesses to choose this technology.
10. We also sought comment on whether interconnected VoIP service
should remain classified in the miscellaneous service category, as it
has been in previous ESLs. As proposed by USAC in its annual ESL
submission, we conclude that interconnected VoIP service should be
listed in both the telecommunications and Internet access categories to
help minimize applicant confusion noted by commenters. We clarify that
we are not, by this action, ultimately determining that interconnected
VoIP is either a telecommunications service or an Internet access
service. Rather, we put interconnected VoIP in both of those ESL
categories because interconnected VoIP can be provided by both
telecommunications service providers or non-telecommunications service
providers. Because of this change, it will no longer be necessary to
list interconnected VoIP in the miscellaneous category of the ESL. We
believe this change will also clarify that applicants can apply for and
receive E-rate funding for interconnected VoIP service provided by
either a telecommunications service provider or an Internet access
service provider. We encourage applicants soliciting bids for
interconnected VoIP services to post for the services in both
categories to expand the number of service providers that can bid on
the services sought. Consistent with USAC's recommendation, we clarify
that applicants are not required to prepare a technology plan if they
are seeking discounts only for interconnected VoIP. Thus, we amend
section 54.504(b) of our rules to make clear that no technology plan is
needed if applicants are applying only for interconnected VoIP.
11. We also agree with Funds for Learning that any interconnected
VoIP hardware that does not meet the test for Priority 1 services in
the Tennessee
[[Page 17586]]
Order should be considered Priority 2 internal connections and should
be ineligible for Priority 1 funding. In the Tennessee Order, the
Commission stated that a service is considered a component of internal
connections if it is necessary to ``transport information within one or
more instructional buildings of a single school campus.'' The
Commission also stated that it was reasonable to presume that if
facilities are located on an applicant's premises, then such facilities
are necessary to transport information within one or more buildings of
the school campus, and are thus a Priority 2 internal connections
service and not part of an end-to-end Internet access service, i.e., a
Priority 1 service. This presumption can be rebutted with evidence that
the applicant does not own or have exclusive use of the facilities.
Thus, leased VoIP telephone systems will need to be evaluated in
accordance with the conditions in the Tennessee Order, to determine
whether they should be eligible as Priority 2 internal connections only
or if some portion of the system would be eligible as Priority 1. For
example, only the lease of a single basic terminating component is
eligible as a Priority 1 service under E-rate and this may include a
VoIP gateway device located on the applicant's premises, but hubs,
routers and switches are not considered basic terminating components
and would be subject to the on-premise Priority 1 equipment conditions
set forth in the Tennessee Order.
12. In the ESL NPRM, we also sought comment on whether applicants
requesting funding for interconnected VoIP service as an Internet
access service must comply with and certify to requirements identified
in the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(5),
(l). Enacted in 2001, CIPA imposed requirements on schools and
libraries ``having computers with Internet access'' and prohibits
schools and libraries from receiving discounted services if those
requirements are not met. 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(5), (h)(6). This prohibition
is not applicable to a school or library that receives discounted
services ``only for purposes other than the provision of Internet
access, Internet service, or internal connections.'' 47 U.S.C.
254(h)(5)(A)(ii), (h)(6)(A)(ii). Thus, the Commission determined that
schools or libraries receiving only discounted telecommunications
services were not required to comply with CIPA. Consistent with the
majority of commenters' arguments, we conclude that applicants
requesting funds for interconnected VoIP service alone are not required
to comply with and certify to CIPA requirements. While interconnected
VoIP service may traverse the Internet, interconnected VoIP service, by
definition, is not used to provide an Internet access service, Internet
service, or internal connections. 47 CFR 9.3. Therefore, we find that
CIPA compliance is not required for applicants that receive funding for
interconnected VoIP service. Applicants seeking support for
interconnected VoIP service that also seek support for Internet access,
Internet service, or internal connections would certify their CIPA
compliance separately for the Internet access.
13. Text Messaging. We find that we should modify our rules to
include text messaging, known as short message service (SMS), as a
service eligible for E-rate support. We agree with commenters who noted
that text messaging is similar to other E-rate-eligible services used
by applicants to communicate, such as e-mail and paging services.
Moreover, we believe our decision to add text messaging is analogous to
our decision in the Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order to
add voice mail service to the list of E-rate-eligible services. Thus,
for similar reasons, we designate text messaging as a service eligible
for E-rate support. We note that we include text messaging as an
eligible service irrespective of whether text message is ultimately
categorized as a telecommunications service or an information service.
This service will be categorized in the ESL in the telecommunications
service category as a component of telephone service because text
messaging has generally been available in conjunction with wireless
telephone service, and the charges for text messaging are typically
bundled with wireless telephone service or the separate charges for the
text messaging service appear on the same bill as the telephone
service. We therefore amend section 54.503 of our rules to designate
text messaging as a supported special service.
14. We remind applicants that text messaging is eligible for E-rate
support when used for educational purposes only. The Commission had
established a presumption that activities that occur in a library or
classroom or on library or school property are integral, immediate, and
proximate to the education of students or the provision of library
services to library patrons. We caution applicants that for purposes of
the E-rate program, eligible text messaging would not include
applications, software or other special features that, for example, are
used to facilitate the mass distribution of text messages, or the
creation or management of distribution groups for text messaging.
B. Clarifications Regarding the Eligibility for Support of Services in
the Funding Year 2010 ESL
15. We also release the ESL for E-rate funding year 2010 and make
findings about the particular changes to the ESL recommended by USAC.
Specifically, we clarify the eligibility of video on-demand servers,
ethernet, Web hosting, wireless LAN controllers, VoIP-related services,
and virtualization software. We also find that telephone broadcast
messaging, unbundled warranties, power distribution units, softphones,
interactive white boards, and e-mail archiving are ineligible for E-
rate program funding.
16. Video On-Demand Servers. Although USAC had proposed to make
``video on-demand servers'' ineligible in their entirety, we clarify
that applicants can continue to receive E-rate discounts as internal
connections for the portion of a video on-demand server that enables
the transport of video to the classroom or parts of a library. The
portion of a video on-demand server that enables the storage of video
or other content, however, would remain ineligible. To clarify the
eligibility status of a video on-demand server, we add the term ``video
content storage'' to the list of ineligible storage components on the
ESL. This should more clearly delineate the portion of a video on-
demand server that is ineligible for discounts. Currently, applicants
are using servers that house video for various purposes, including
transporting information over a wide area network (WAN) or LAN to
classrooms from a central server. We note that there may be video on-
demand servers that are primarily dedicated to the storage of video and
other content and the cost-allocation used by the manufacturer should
accurately reflect the true use of the server. We also caution
applicants that duplicative products or services are ineligible. If
applicants are using other products or services to transport video or
information throughout their school or library buildings, the portion
of a video on-demand server that also provides this capability will be
considered duplicative and ineligible.
17. Ethernet. We clarify that ethernet is an eligible digital
transmission technology in the telecommunications funding category of
the ESL. Ethernet technology provides a network that connects
computers. Although traditionally associated with local area
[[Page 17587]]
networks, technology has evolved such that ethernet networks can span
large distances and can provide connections from within an eligible
school or library to other locations beyond the school or library.
Therefore, we find that for purposes of the E-rate program, ethernet
service is eligible in the telecommunications funding category. We
agree with commenters who state that adding ethernet to the ESL
``reflects the evolution of telecommunications technologies that are
commercially available and is a clarification of previous
eligibility.'' We also note that although it was not specifically
listed in the ESL for funding year 2009, ethernet is a type of digital
transmission service that has been eligible for E-rate discounts when
purchased as a Priority 1 telecommunications service.
18. Web hosting. We clarify that web pages protected by a username
and password are eligible for funding as part of web hosting services.
The fact that a school or library restricts access to all or part of
its Web site to certain users--e.g., school administrators, teachers,
librarians and students--does not render the service ineligible for E-
rate funds. Web hosting has been on the ESL since funding year 2004, as
Internet access. We emphasize that an eligible Web hosting service is
limited to hosting a school or library's Web site--software
applications, end-user file storage, and content editing features are
still ineligible components of a web hosting service. Such ineligible
web hosting features would include, but would not be limited to, the
posting of content created by third party vendors, any type of
interactive application feature that would allow for blogging, and any
features involving data input or retrieval including searching of
databases for grades, student attendance files, or other reports. We
caution applicants that they must cost-allocate these types of
ineligible features. The clarification to allow funding for web pages
protected by a username and password was intended to allow school
administrators, parents, students, and library employees to view web
pages that, may, for various reasons, need to be restricted from
viewing by the rest of the public. This clarification was not intended
to allow applicants to obtain funding for additional web hosting-
related applications and features beyond the service that enables a
school or library to have hosted web pages, including any application
software or features that may be required to maintain password
protected Web pages.
19. Wireless LAN Controllers. We agree with USAC that wireless LAN
controllers should be specifically listed in the ESL as eligible
internal connections under the data distribution category. A wireless
LAN controller is a device that is a central component of a wireless
network solution and that helps to manage the large-scale deployment of
a wireless network. In its proposed changes to the ESL for E-rate
funding year 2010, USAC proposes to include a definition of a wireless
LAN controller as a component that is used in conjunction with access
points to create a wireless local area network. USAC defines an
``access point'' as a base station in a wireless LAN and states that
access points are typically stand-alone devices that may plug into an
ethernet hub or server or may provide a repeater function for wireless
networks. When a school or library is relying on a wireless network
solution, wireless LAN controllers, in conjunction with access points,
are necessary for the delivery of information all the way to the
classrooms of the school or rooms of the library. Under the E-rate
program, internal connections components are those that are necessary
to ``transport information within one or more instructional buildings
of a single school campus or within one or more non-administrative
buildings that comprise a single library branch.'' Wireless LAN
controllers, therefore, are eligible for support under the E-rate
program as internal connections. Applicants have been receiving support
for wireless LAN controllers as eligible internal connections and this
change to the ESL is merely a clarification of the service's existing
funding status.
20. Interconnected VoIP-Related Software. We agree with USAC that
we should clarify that funding for user licenses for VoIP systems are
eligible server based software and can be requested in the internal
connections funding category. Interconnected VoIP user licenses are
necessary for the utilization of the VoIP system. They are similar to
client access licenses for eligible software products, except that they
are specific to VoIP systems. Client access licenses are currently
eligible for E-rate funding. Commenters agree with the proposed
clarification, noting that applicants have received funding for these
services in prior funding years.
21. Virtualization Software. We agree with USAC that virtualization
software is eligible for E-rate support as internal connections. As
stated above, under the E-rate program, internal connections components
are those that are necessary to ``transport information within one or
more instructional buildings of a single school campus or within one or
more non-administrative buildings that comprise a single library
branch.'' USAC's draft ESL for funding year 2010 states that
virtualization software allows for the creation of multiple virtual
servers on a single server, essentially allowing the work of multiple
servers to be performed on one server. We agree with Funds for Learning
that virtualization software should be eligible for E-rate funding when
it is used for eligible server functions. Moreover, one of the internal
connections for which the E-rate program provides discounts is
operating system software, which enables the basic operations of a
computer system or other electronic device. We find that virtualization
software is a type of operating system software. Applicants can use
virtualization software to transport information within its school or
library, and, in so doing, would be using a single server to perform
the tasks of what would usually take multiple servers. Thus,
virtualization software may be a cost-effective technology for
applicants and is eligible for E-rate funding. If applicants also use
virtualization software for functions that are ineligible for E-rate
support, such as archiving, functions that support ineligible
applications, or network management, the applicants must perform a cost
allocation to remove the ineligible functions from their E-rate funding
requests.
22. Telephone Broadcast Messaging. We agree with USAC that
telephone broadcast messaging should not be added to the ESL because we
find that it does not fit within any of the current categories of
supported services. A broadcast messaging service is one that can call
hundreds or thousands of recipients and play a pre-recorded message
from school administrators about information including, but not limited
to, weather delays or closings, school absences, or child safety
issues. Broadcast messaging has been described by commenters as an add-
on to voice mail service and an application riding on top of a service
provider's telecommunications infrastructure. Only a few categories of
software are eligible for E-rate funding, however, including operating
system software, e-mail software, and software for a server-based,
shared voice mail system. While voice mail has been designated as an
eligible service, and the E-rate program pays for the software for a
server-based shared voice mail system, the record in the ESL NPRM
proceeding established that telephone broadcast messaging is an ``add-
on to voice mail'' service and not software for voice mail itself.
Therefore, we find that broadcast
[[Page 17588]]
messaging consists of applications or features that do not fit into any
of the current categories of supported services and thus, should not be
added to the list of software applications that are currently eligible
for support as internal connections. Moreover, we find that it would
not be in the public interest to add telephone broadcast messaging to
the ESL when requests for E-rate funding consistently exceed the
funding cap. While we believe that many school districts find telephone
broadcast messaging a useful service, we do not believe it is essential
to the educational purposes of schools and libraries, and funding this
service may have an adverse effect on funds available for other already
eligible services.
23. Unbundled Warranties. We find that unbundled warranties are not
services eligible for E-rate discounts as basic maintenance of internal
connections. In its proposed changes to the ESL, USAC proposes to add
unbundled warranty to the basic maintenance category of the ESL and
defines ``unbundled warranty'' as a separately priced warranty allowing
for broken equipment to be fixed or, in the event that the problem is
beyond repair, replaced. The Commission has found that basic
maintenance services are eligible for universal service support as
Priority 2 internal connections service if, but for the maintenance at
issue, the internal connection would not function and serve its
intended purpose with the degree of reliability ordinarily provided in
the marketplace to entities receiving such services. We do not add
unbundled warranties to the ESL at this time because we find that a
warranty may be duplicative of an applicant's maintenance agreement or
contract, which is eligible for E-rate discounts. To avoid the
potential waste of E-rate resources, we decline to allow applicants to
receive E-rate discounts for duplicative unbundled warranties.
Moreover, the current ESL states that basic maintenance is eligible for
discount only if it is a component of a maintenance agreement or
contract for eligible components. An unbundled warranty would not be a
component of a maintenance agreement or contract for eligible
components. Therefore, we find that an unbundled warranty is not
eligible for E-rate funds as basic maintenance.
24. Power Distribution Units. We agree with USAC that the ESL
should be updated to clearly state that power distribution units are
not eligible for E-rate support as internal connections. USAC proposes
to define a ``power distribution unit'' as a power strip designed for
data centers or racks with greater capacity and features than a power
strip, and a ``power strip'' as a group of sockets that allow for
multiple power cords to plug into a single device. Power strips have
not previously been eligible for E-rate funding and, because a power
distribution unit is merely a type of power strip with additional
capacities and features, we find that it is also ineligible for E-rate
program funds.
25. Softphones. We agree with USAC's proposal to clarify in the ESL
that softphones are software that is ineligible for E-rate funding. The
Commission has approved operating system software, e-mail software, and
software for a server-based, shared voice mail system as eligible
software under the internal connections funding category for E-rate.
USAC proposes to define a softphone as end-user application software
that allows users the use of a personal computer's microphone and
speakers to make telephone calls in place of a physical end-user
telephone. This type of application software is unlike the types of
software the Commission has previously approved for E-rate funding and,
as commenters note, softphones perform the same functions as physical
desktop telephones, which are end-user equipment and are not eligible
for E-rate funding.
26. Interactive White Boards. We agree with USAC and commenters
that the ESL should clarify that interactive white boards are end-user
equipment that is ineligible for E-rate funding. End-user equipment,
such as desktop telephones, personal computers, fax machines, and
modems, for example, is not eligible for E-rate discounts. In its draft
ESL for funding year 2010, USAC defines an ``interactive white board''
as a device that allows end-users to display information with a vast
array of interactive features. We find, therefore, that interactive
white boards are end-user equipment that is not eligible for E-rate
funding.
27. E-mail Archiving. We agree with USAC's proposal to clarify in
the ESL that e-mail archiving is an ineligible component of an e-mail
service. In addition, we agree with USAC's clarification to the draft
ESL for funding year 2010 that, for purposes of E-rate support, storage
products may be used for eligible e-mail files but not for e-mail
archiving. USAC's draft ESL for funding year 2010 defines e-mail
archiving as a form of electronic recordkeeping, often compressing e-
mail files to make available greater in-box space. For example, when e-
mail is archived to reduce in-box size, reduce hard drive space, and
retain records for future retrieval, it constitutes the storage of end-
user files and is ineligible for E-rate discounts. Although E-rate
eligible e-mail services can include a short-term storage component
that enables the user to view current e-mails, any long-term storage
service is ineligible for E-rate discounts and we agree with USAC that
this distinction should be made clear to applicants in the 2010 ESL.
Procedural Matters
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
28. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 603,
requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for
notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies
that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C.
605(b). The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the
term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A
``small business concern'' is one which: (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). 15 U.S.C. 632.
29. In the report and order, we modify our rules to expressly
include interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) and text
messaging as eligible services in our rules governing the E-rate
program. We also release the list of services that will be eligible for
discounts for E-rate funding year 2010. This Eligible Services List
(ESL) is released on an annual basis to enable school and library
applicants and other affected entities to determine the services and
products that are eligible for E-rate discounts. In the report and
order we add services to the ESL but do not remove any services from
the list. Thus, the only changes made in our report and order result in
the ability of schools and libraries to seek E-rate discounts for more
services than were available to them in the prior funding year. This
means that the rule revisions will result in a positive net impact on
small entities. Therefore, we certify that the requirements of the
report and order will have no significant economic impact.
30. The Commission will send a copy of the report and order,
including a copy
[[Page 17589]]
of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the report and order (or summary thereof)
and this final certification will be published in the Federal Register,
and will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small
Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Paperwork Reduction
31. This report and order does not contain proposed information
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new
or modified ``information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Congressional Review Act
32. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order [CC
Docket No. 02-6; FCC 09-105] in a report to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Ex Parte Presentations
33. These matters shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR
1.1200 through 1.1216. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain
summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a
listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence
description of the views and arguments presented is generally required.
47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2). Other requirements pertaining to oral and written
presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's
rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
Ordering Clauses
34. It is ordered, that pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1 through 4, 201-205, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201 through
205, 254, 303(r), and 403, this report and order is adopted.
35. It is further ordered, that pursuant to the authority contained
in sections 1 through 4, 201-205, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201 through
205, 254, 303(r), and 403, sections 54.503, 54.507, and 54.517 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 54.503, 54.507 and 54.517, is amended,
effective May 7, 2010.
36. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this report and order, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54
Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and
children, Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools,
Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 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), 201, 205, 214, and 254 unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 54.503 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 54.503 Other supported special services.
For the purposes of this subpart, other supported special services
provided by telecommunications carriers include voice mail,
interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), text messaging,
Internet access, and installation and maintenance of internal
connections in addition to all reasonable charges that are incurred by
taking such services, such as state and federal taxes. Charges for
termination liability, penalty surcharges, and other charges not
included in the cost of taking such services shall not be covered by
the universal service support mechanisms.
0
3. Section 54.504 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read
as follows:
Sec. 54.504 Requests for services.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) The technology plan(s) has/have been approved by a state or
other authorized body; the technology plan(s) will be approved by a
state or other authorized body; or no technology plan needed because
the applicant is applying for voice mail, interconnected voice over
Internet protocol (VoIP), or basic local, cellular, PCS, or long
distance telephone service only.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 54.507 is amended by revising paragraphs (g) introductory
text, (g)(1)introductory text, (g)(1)(i) through (iii) (the note
remains unchanged) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.507 Cap.
* * * * *
(g) Rules of priority. The Administrator shall act in accordance
with paragraph (g)(1) of this section with respect to applicants that
file an FCC Form 471, as described in Sec. 54.504(c) of this part,
when a filing period described in paragraph (c) of this section is in
effect. The Administrator shall act in accordance with paragraph (g)(2)
of this section with respect to applicants that file an FCC Form 471,
as described in Sec. 54.504(c) of this part, at all times other than
within a filing period described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(1) When the filing period described in paragraph (c) of this
section closes, the Administrator shall calculate the total demand for
support submitted by applicants during the filing period. If total
demand exceeds the total support available for that funding year, the
Administrator shall take the following steps:
(i) The Administrator shall first calculate the demand for services
listed under the telecommunications and Internet access categories on
the eligible services list for all discount levels, as determined by
the schools and libraries discount matrix in Sec. 54.505(c). These
services shall receive first priority for the available funding.
(ii) The Administrator shall then calculate the amount of available
funding remaining after providing support for the telecommunications
and Internet access categories for all discount levels. The
Administrator shall allocate the remaining funds to the requests for
support for internal connections, beginning with the most economically
disadvantaged schools and libraries, as determined by the schools and
libraries discount matrix in Sec. 54.505(c) of this part. Schools and
libraries eligible for a 90 percent discount shall receive first
priority for the remaining funds, and those funds will be applied to
their requests for internal connections.
(iii) To the extent that funds remain after the allocation
described in Sec. Sec. 54.507(g)(1)(i) and (ii), the
[[Page 17590]]
Administrator shall next allocate funds toward the requests for
internal connections submitted by schools and libraries eligible for an
80 percent discount, then for a 70 percent discount, and shall continue
committing funds for internal connections in the same manner to the
applicants at each descending discount level until there are no funds
remaining.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 54.517 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 54.517 Services provided by non-telecommunications carriers.
* * * * *
(b) Supported services. Non-telecommunications carriers shall be
eligible for universal service support under this subpart for providing
interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), voice mail,
Internet access, and installation and maintenance of internal
connections.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-7757 Filed 4-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P