Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, 32692-32699 [2010-12931]
Download as PDF
32692
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Flooding source(s)
Location of referenced elevation
* Elevation in feet (NGVD)
+ Elevation in feet (NAVD)
# Depth in feet above
ground
∧ Elevation in meters
(MSL)
Effective
Communities affected
Modified
Maps are available for inspection at 215 South Mill Street, Louisville, OH 44641.
City of Massillon
Maps are available for inspection at 151 Lincolnway East, Massillon, OH 44646.
City of North Canton
Maps are available for inspection at 220 West Maple Street, North Canton, OH 44720.
Unincorporated Areas of Stark County
Maps are available for inspection at 110 Central Plaza South, Canton, OH 44702.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.
97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)
Dated: May 14, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administrator, Mitigation, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010–13859 Filed 6–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–12–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[CC Docket No. 02–6; FCC 09–105]
Schools and Libraries Universal
Service Support Mechanism
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed 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.
Specifically, in this Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we
propose that the following services
should not be eligible for funding under
the E-rate program—separately priced
firewall services, anti-virus/anti-spam
software, scheduling services, wireless
Internet access applications, and web
hosting. We propose to revise the
Commission’s rules to establish that the
Commission should not be required to
list individual products and services
(e.g., voice mail) in the rules, but that
such products and services will be
listed in the Eligible Services List (ESL).
We propose to require the Universal
Service Administrative Company
(USAC) to submit any proposed changes
to the ESL to the Commission no later
than March 30th of each year. Finally,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Jun 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
we propose to eliminate the requirement
that the ESL be released by public
notice.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rules
are due on or before July 9, 2010 and
reply comments are due on or before
July 26, 2010. Written comments on the
Paperwork Reduction Act proposed
information collection requirements
should be submitted on or before
August 9, 2010. If you anticipate that
you will be submitting comments, but
find it difficult to do so within the
period of time allowed by this notice,
you should advise the contact listed
below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by CC Docket No. 02–6, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
• In addition to filing comments with
the Secretary, a copy of any comments
on the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements
contained herein should be submitted to
the Federal Communications
Commission via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov
and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of
Management and Budget, via e-mail to
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via
fax at 202–395–5167.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara
Voth, Wireline Competition Bureau,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, (202) 418–7400 or TTY: (202)
418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking 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.
Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. In this FNPRM, we seek comment
on whether particular services should
be designated as eligible for E-rate
support. Specifically, we tentatively
conclude that the Eligible Services List
(ESL) should not include separately
priced firewall services, anti-virus/antispam software, scheduling services,
wireless Internet access applications,
and web hosting should not be eligible
for funding under the E-rate program.
Alternatively, we propose that web
hosting should be eligible for E-rate
program funds as a Priority 2 service.
We also propose to change our rules to
establish that the Commission no longer
needs to list individual products and
services in the rules, but that such
products and services will be listed in
the ESL. We propose to change our rules
to require the Universal Service
Administrative Company (USAC) to
submit any proposed changes to the ESL
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
09JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules
to the Commission no later than March
30th of each year. Finally, we
tentatively conclude to revise our rules
to eliminate the requirement that the
ESL be released by public notice.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Jun 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
maintenance of internal connections,
and miscellaneous.
5. In the ESL NPRM (73 FR 48352,
August 19, 2008), 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. 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. Services
6. In this FNPRM, we seek comment
on the tentative conclusions we make
regarding services discussed in the ESL
NPRM that have not been addressed
already. We tentatively conclude that
separately priced firewall services, antivirus and anti-spam software,
teleconferencing scheduling services,
and wireless Internet access
applications, should not be added to the
ESL. Additionally, we tentatively
conclude that web hosting should not be
eligible for funding under the E-rate
program, or, alternatively, should only
be eligible for E-rate program funds as
a Priority 2 service.
7. Firewall. We tentatively conclude
that we should decline to add separately
priced firewall services to the ESL. In
the 2007 ESL, the Commission clarified
that only basic firewall services that are
provided as a standard component of a
vendor’s Internet access service are
eligible for E-rate program discounts.
The E-rate program already funds basic
firewall services, giving applicants a
basic level of protection. We tentatively
conclude that the inclusion of
separately priced firewall services is not
essential and may have an adverse effect
on funds available for other already
eligible services. We seek comment on
this tentative conclusion and also ask
that commenters provide examples of
how separately priced firewalls are used
by schools and libraries so that we can
determine whether we should
reexamine our tentative conclusion. We
also seek comment on a suggested
updated definition of basic firewall
services and whether that would
provide better guidance to applicants on
what types of basic firewall services are
eligible for E-rate funding.
8. Anti-Virus/Anti-Spam Software.
We tentatively conclude that we should
not add anti-virus and anti-spam
software to the ESL and seek comment
on this tentative conclusion. Anti-virus
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32693
and anti-spam software is not an
Internet access service itself but is a
separate software application designed
to enhance the operation of Internet
access service. 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. We tentatively conclude that
anti-virus and anti-spam software
should not be added to the list of
eligible software under internal
connections because this software does
not fit into the categories of software
that are currently on the ESL. Even if
anti-virus and anti-spam software are
generally considered necessary for the
operation of e-mail, we believe that such
products should not be funded because
their addition to the ESL may have an
adverse affect on the funds available for
other services. We seek comment on
these tentative conclusions.
9. Scheduling Services. We tentatively
conclude that we should not adopt
scheduling services as eligible for E-rate
funding. As explained above, only
operating system software, e-mail
software, and software for a serverbased, shared voice mail system have
been approved for E-rate funding.
Scheduling software allows schools and
libraries to use video teleconferencing
for distance learning by coordinating
between locations. We believe that
scheduling services, while potentially
useful for schools and libraries, does not
fit into the categories of software that
are currently on the ESL. We also find
that schools and libraries are able to use
video teleconferencing for distance
learning without scheduling services
and therefore such services are not
essential. The E-rate program is
operated with a finite amount of
funding and we tentatively conclude
that funds should not be shifted from
necessary components to add
scheduling services to the program. We
seek comment on this tentative
conclusion.
10. Web Hosting. Web hosting, as an
unbundled Internet access service, was
added to the ESL in October 2003, for
funding year 2004. In funding year
2004, Web hosting was described as an
Internet service provided by an Internet
service provider that will host a school
or library’s Web site (https://
www.schoolname.org) as part of a
bundled service offering, or as an
optional service. Because Web hosting is
listed in the ESL as Internet access, it is
funded under the E-rate program as a
Priority 1 service. Although Web
hosting has been included as part of
Internet access, we now seek comment
on whether Web hosting should
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
09JNP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
32694
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules
continue to be eligible for funding under
the category of Priority 1 Internet access.
We tentatively conclude that Web
hosting should not be eligible for
funding under the E-rate program, or,
alternatively, should only be eligible for
E-rate program funds as a Priority 2
service. We tentatively conclude that we
should remove Web hosting from the
ESL because, while many school
districts find Web hosting to be a useful
way to post information for parents and
the community, we do not believe it is
essential to the educational purposes of
schools and libraries. We seek comment
on this tentative conclusion.
11. If we decide to retain Web hosting
on the ESL, we tentatively conclude that
Web hosting is not Internet access or an
information service and it should move
to Priority 2. In funding year 2004, there
was a presumption in the ESL
description of Web hosting that Web
hosting was to be provided by an
Internet service provider. In today’s
marketplace, Web hosting vendors are
not necessarily Internet service
providers, and although a basic Web
hosting service is comprised of the
physical rental of space on a vendor’s
server for the hosting of an applicant’s
Web site, Web hosting service has
greatly evolved with a variety of
optional features. To the extent the
Commission adopts the tentative
conclusion that Web hosting service is
eligible as a Priority 2 service, what
aspects of this service should be eligible
and how should an eligible Priority 2
Web hosting service be described in the
ESL? Also, should contracts between
Web hosting vendors and applicants be
itemized to show the pricing of E-rate
eligible features and elements of Web
hosting?
12. Wireless Internet Access
Applications. We tentatively conclude
that certain wireless Internet access
applications including, but not limited
to, services that could be used on school
buses to transmit emergency
information, track students, and locate
buses with GPS technology, are
ineligible for E-rate support. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
To the extent commenters support Erate funding on these services we seek
comment on how or why these
applications would serve an educational
purpose. Like scheduling software, we
find that wireless Internet access
applications are non-essential services
and we tentatively conclude that we
should not add them to the ESL at this
time. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Jun 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
B. Administrative Matters Related to the
ESL
13. Commission’s Rules Regarding
Eligible Services. Currently, sections
54.502 and 54.503 of the Commission’s
rules state that telecommunications
carriers may provide
telecommunications, Internet access,
and internal connections; section 54.506
defines internal connections; section
54.517 provides that nontelecommunications carriers may
provide voice mail, Internet access, and
internal connections; and section 54.518
describes the wide area network
services that will be supported. We
tentatively conclude that the rules
should be restructured so that all of the
provisions relating to eligible services
be located in the same place and seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
We seek comment on the proposed
restructure of these rules.
14. The Commission rules that
address the services that are eligible for
E-rate support generally provide that
telecommunications, Internet access,
internal connections, and basic
maintenance are eligible for E-rate
support. They also, however, refer to
specific services such as voice mail or
wide area network. The ESL also lists
specific services that are eligible for Erate support, e.g., Centrex is listed as a
supported service under the
telecommunications services category.
Applicants may be confused by the
differences between the Commission’s
rules and the ESL. Thus, we propose
that the rules regarding eligible services
should make clear that the specific
services eligible for support under the
general categories of
telecommunications, Internet access,
and internal connections will be listed
in the ESL and not specifically named
in the Commission’s rules. We
tentatively conclude that any reference
to specific services or products in the
rules should be removed and instead the
rules should state that all products and
services eligible for E-rate support will
be listed in the ESL. We seek comment
on this tentative conclusion.
15. Section 54.522 of the
Commission’s rules provides a process
by which the ESL can be changed from
funding year to funding year. The
process requires USAC to submit any
proposed changes to the ESL for the
following funding year by June 30th of
each year to the Commission so that the
Commission can release such proposals
by public notice for comment. Any final
changes to the ESL for the following
funding year are voted on and released
after this comment period. We find that
this process provides the public with
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ample notice of any potential changes to
the eligibility status of certain products
and services. Requiring the Commission
to change its rules with the addition of
each new service or change to the ESL
does not enable USAC and Commission
to keep up with the rapidly changing
needs of schools and libraries to access
telecommunications and advanced
services. We find that our tentative
conclusion to remove from our rules all
references to specific services eligible
for support will provide the
Commission with the flexibility to make
E-rate discounts available on new and
improved products and services in a
fluid yet predictable environment. We
seek comment on the reasons we have
provided for our tentative conclusion.
We also seek comment on any
alternative proposals or ideas that
would better inform the public of the
services that are eligible for E-rate
support.
16. Because we tentatively conclude
that reference to specific services should
not be made in the rules, we propose to
remove section 54.518 from our rules.
Section 54.518 states that applicants
cannot receive E-rate support to build or
purchase a WAN. Instead, the program’s
requirements pertaining to WANs will
be included in the ESL. We emphasize
that this proposal will not change the
current eligibility of WANs. We seek
comment on our tentative conclusion to
delete this rule.
17. In addition, we tentatively
conclude that we should change the
name of the category of supported
services currently called ‘‘Internet
access’’ to ‘‘Internet access and
information services’’ in the ESL. We
have defined Internet access as ‘‘basic
conduit access to the Internet.’’ The
current ESL, however, also includes email under the category of ‘‘Internet
access.’’ While e-mail uses the Internet,
it is not, itself, Internet access. As such,
we believe including ‘‘information
services’’ in the descriptive title of the
category would more accurately reflect
the type of services eligible. We seek
comment on this proposed change.
18. Commission’s Rules Regarding the
ESL Process. We tentatively conclude
that we should change the process by
which the Commission adopts changes
to the ESL. First, we tentatively
conclude that USAC should file its
proposed ESL with the Commission no
later than March 30th each year. Section
54.522 of the Commission’s rules
requires USAC to submit a draft ESL
with any proposed changes to the
Commission by June 30th of each year.
The Commission then releases a public
notice seeking comment on USAC’s
proposed ESL. Section 54.522 of the
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
09JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Commission’s rules requires the
Commission to release the final ESL at
least 60 days prior to the opening of the
application filing window for the next
E-rate funding year. For the last two
years, USAC has opened the application
filing window in early November for
funding year 2008 and early December
for funding year 2009. The current rule,
therefore, allows approximately three
months for the Commission to release
the proposed draft of the ESL, for the
public to review and comment on the
draft, and for the Commission to release
the final ESL. We have found that we
have not had enough time to complete
all of the steps required by the rule and
release the final ESL 60 days prior to the
opening of the application filing
window. Indeed, on at least three prior
occasions, as we have done this year, we
have waived section 54.522 to allow
USAC to open the application filing
window without having to wait 60 days
from the release of the final ESL. We
find that requiring USAC to submit the
proposed ESL earlier will allow
additional time for the Commission to
review the proposal and to review and
analyze public comment on the
proposed ESL. In the alternative, we
seek comment from the public on any
other methods by which we can
streamline this process and keep it one
that allows for ample public notice and
opportunities for public participation.
19. We also tentatively conclude that
we should change the provision in
section 54.522 of the Commission’s
rules that requires the Commission to
issue a public notice seeking comment
on USAC’s proposed annual changes to
the ESL and another public notice
announcing the release of the final ESL
for the upcoming funding year.
Specifically, we believe the rules should
be changed to remove the requirement
that the ESL be released as a public
notice by the Commission. This will
provide the Commission with flexibility
to provide, for example, more detailed
explanations regarding changes to the
ESL in an order when it deems
necessary. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Procedural Matters
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
20. 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Jun 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
21. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission
has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in the FNPRM. Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments on the
NPRM. The Commission will send a
copy of this FNPRM, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). In addition, the FNPRM (or
summary thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
22. The Commission is required by
section 254 of the Act to promulgate
rules to implement the universal service
provisions of section 254. On May 8,
1997, the Commission adopted rules to
reform its system of universal service
support mechanisms so that universal
service is preserved and advanced as
markets move toward competition.
Specifically, under the schools and
libraries universal service support
mechanism, also known as 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. Since the initial
implementation of the E-rate program,
USAC has developed various
procedures and guidelines, consistent
with the Commission’s rules and
requirements, to ensure that funding is
provided only for eligible services.
23. Pursuant to the Commission’s
rules, the Commission released the
Public Notice seeking comment on
USAC’s proposed ESL for Funding Year
2010. The ESL indicates whether
specific products or services are eligible
for discounts under the E-rate program.
In 2009 ESL Public Notice, we noted
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32695
that this proceeding is limited to
determining what services are eligible
under the Commission’s current rules
and is generally not intended to be a
vehicle for changing any eligibility
rules. We also noted, however, that the
Commission sought comment on
various issues including the eligibility
of specific services in the ESL NPRM
released last year and invited parties
that wanted their ESL NPRM comments
considered in response to the public
notice to refile those comments.
24. In the FNPRM, we seek comment
on the Commission’s tentative
conclusion that the ESL should not add
separately-priced firewall services, antivirus/anti-spam software, scheduling
services, and wireless Internet access
applications. The Commission agrees
with commenters that these services are
either not eligible under the Act or are
not essential to furthering the goals and
purposes of the E-rate program. Further,
we agree with commenters that paying
for the discount on these services would
have an adverse effect on services that
are already being funded. We also seek
comment on the Commission’s tentative
conclusion that Web hosting should not
be eligible for funding under the E-rate
program, or, alternatively, should only
be eligible for E-rate program funds as
a Priority 2 service. The Commission
does not believe that Web hosting is
essential to the educational purposes of
schools and libraries. We also seek
comment on changes to our rules to
establish that specific eligible products
and services should be listed in the ESL
as opposed to being listed individually
in the rules. We seek comment on our
tentative conclusions on the process for
developing the ESL, including requiring
the Universal Service Administrative
Company (USAC) to submit any
proposed changes to the ESL to the
Commission no later than March 30th of
each year. Finally, we seek comment on
the Commission’s tentative conclusion
to revise our rules to eliminate the
requirement that the ESL be released by
public notice, which would provide the
Commission the flexibility to release the
ESL by order. All of these
administrative changes would bring
clarity and transparency to the ESL
process and would benefit all
participants in the program.
2. Legal Basis
25. The legal basis for the FNPRM is
contained in sections 1 through 4, 201
through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154,
201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403,
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
09JNP1
32696
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
and section 1.411 of the Commission’s
rules, 47 CFR 1.411.
3. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which
Rules May Apply
26. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small entity’’
as having the same meaning as the terms
‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’
and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’
In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’
has the same meaning as the term ‘‘small
business concern’’ under the Small
Business Act. A small business concern
is one that: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
SBA. Nationwide, there are a total of
approximately 22.4 million small
businesses, according to SBA data. A
small organization is generally ‘‘any notfor-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.’’
Nationwide, as of 2002, there were
approximately 1.6 million small
organizations. ‘‘Small governmental
jurisdiction’’ generally means
‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of
less than 50,000.’’ Census Bureau data
for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525
local governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. We estimate that, of this
total, 84,377 entities were ‘‘small
governmental jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we
estimate that most governmental
jurisdictions are small.
27. Small entities potentially affected
by the proposals herein include eligible
schools and libraries and the eligible
service providers offering them
discounted services, including
telecommunications service providers,
Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and
vendors of the services and equipment
used for internal connections.
28. Schools. As noted, ‘‘small entity’’
includes non-profit and small
government entities. Under the schools
and libraries universal service support
mechanism, which provides support for
elementary and secondary schools, an
elementary school is generally ‘‘a nonprofit institutional day or residential
school that provides elementary
education, as determined under state
law.’’ A secondary school is generally
defined as ‘‘a non-profit institutional
day or residential school that provides
secondary education, as determined
under state law,’’ and not offering
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Jun 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
education beyond grade 12. For-profit
schools, and schools and libraries with
endowments in excess of $50,000,000,
are not eligible to receive discounts
under the program. Certain other
statutory definitions apply as well. The
SBA has defined for-profit, elementary
and secondary schools having $7
million or less in annual receipts as
small entities. In funding year 2007
approximately 105,500 schools received
funding under the schools and libraries
universal service mechanism. Although
we are unable to estimate with precision
the number of these entities that would
qualify as small entities under SBA’s
size standard, we estimate that fewer
than 105,500 schools might be affected
annually by our action, under current
operation of the program.
29. Libraries. As noted, ‘‘small entity’’
includes non-profit and small
government entities. Under the schools
and libraries universal service support
mechanism, which provides support for
libraries, the definition of library
includes public libraries, public
elementary school or secondary school
libraries, academic libraries, certain
research libraries and private libraries
where the state has determined that the
library should be considered a library
for purposes of this definition. Forprofit libraries are not eligible to receive
discounts under the program, nor are
libraries whose budgets are not
completely separate from any schools.
Certain other statutory definitions apply
as well. The SBA has defined for-profit
libraries having $7 million or less in
annual receipts as small entities. In
funding year 2007 approximately 10,950
libraries received funding under the
schools and libraries universal service
mechanism. Although we are unable to
estimate with precision the number of
these entities that would qualify as
small entities under SBA’s size
standard, we estimate that fewer than
10,950 libraries might be affected
annually by our action, under current
operation of the program.
30. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission
nor the SBA has developed a size
standard for small incumbent local
exchange services. The closest size
standard under SBA rules is for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under
that size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 1,311
incumbent carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of local
exchange services. Of these 1,311
carriers, an estimated 1,024 have 1,500
or fewer employees and 287 have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small businesses that may be
affected by the rules and policies
adopted herein.
31. We have included small
incumbent local exchange carriers in
this RFA analysis. A ‘‘small business’’
under the RFA is one that, inter alia,
meets the pertinent small business size
standard (e.g., a telephone
communications business having 1,500
or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not
dominant in its field of operation.’’ The
SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that,
for RFA purposes, small incumbent
local exchange carriers are not dominant
in their field of operation because any
such dominance is not ‘‘national’’ in
scope. We have therefore included small
incumbent carriers in this RFA analysis,
although we emphasize that this RFA
action has no effect on the
Commission’s analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
32. Interexchange Carriers. Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition of small entities
specifically applicable to providers of
interexchange services (IXCs). The
closest applicable definition under the
SBA rules is for wired
telecommunications carriers. This
provides that a wired
telecommunications carrier is a small
entity if it employs no more than 1,500
employees. According to the
Commission’s 2008 Trends Report, 300
companies reported that they were
engaged in the provision of
interexchange services. Of these 300
IXCs, an estimated 268 have 1,500 or
few employees and 32 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of interexchange services are
small businesses that may be affected by
the rules and policies adopted herein.
33. Competitive Access Providers.
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a definition of small
entities specifically applicable to
competitive access services providers
(CAPs). The closest applicable
definition under the SBA rules is for
wired telecommunications carriers. This
provides that a wired
telecommunications carrier is a small
entity if it employs no more than 1,500
employees. According to the 2008
Trends Report, 1,005 CAPs and
competitive local exchange carriers
(competitive LECs) reported that they
were engaged in the provision of
competitive local exchange services. Of
these 1,005 CAPs and competitive LECs,
an estimated 918 have 1,500 or few
employees and 87 have more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
09JNP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Commission estimates that most
providers of competitive exchange
services are small businesses that may
be affected by the rules and policies
adopted herein.
34. Wireless Telecommunications.
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a definition of small
entities specifically for wireless
telephony. The closest definition is the
SBA definition for wireless
telecommunications (except satellite).
Under this definition, a cellular licensee
is a small entity if it employs no more
than 1,500 employees. According to the
2008 Trends Report, 434 providers
classified themselves as providers of
wireless telephony, including cellular
telecommunications, Personal
Communications Service, and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
Telephony Carriers. Of these 437
wireless telephony providers, an
estimated 222 have 1,500 or few
employees and 212 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that more than
half of the providers of wireless
telephony services are small businesses
that may be affected by the rules and
policies adopted herein.
35. Other Wireless Services. Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition of small entities
specifically applicable to wireless
services other than wireless telephony.
The closest applicable definition under
the SBA rules is again that of wireless
telecommunications (except satellite),
under which a service provider is a
small entity if it employs no more than
1,500 employees. According to the 2008
Trends Report, 69 providers classified
themselves as wireless data carriers or
other mobile service providers. Of these
69 providers, an estimated 65 have
1,500 or few employees and 4 have
more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of
wireless services other than wireless
telephony are small businesses that may
be affected by the rules and policies
adopted herein.
36. Paging and Messaging Service
Providers. In the Paging Third Report
and Order, we developed a small
business size standard for ‘‘small
businesses’’ and ‘‘very small businesses’’
for purposes of determining their
eligibility for special provisions such as
bidding credits and installment
payments. A ‘‘small business’’ is an
entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $15
million for the preceding three years.
Additionally, a ‘‘very small business’’ is
an entity that, together with its affiliates
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Jun 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $3
million for the preceding three years.
An auction of Metropolitan Economic
Area licenses commenced on February
24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000.
Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were
sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming
small business status won. At present,
there are approximately 24,000 PrivatePaging site-specific licenses and 74,000
Common Carrier Paging licenses.
According to Commission data, 281
carriers reported that they were engaged
in the provision of paging services,
messaging services, or other mobile
services. Of those, the Commission
estimates that 279 are small, under the
SBA approved small business size
standard.
37. Internet Service Providers. Under
the category of Internet service provider,
a small business is one having annual
receipts of $23 million or less.
According to SBA data, there are a total
of 2,829 firms with annual receipts of
less than $10 million, and an additional
111 firms with annual receipts of $10
million or more. Thus, the number of
On-line Information Services firms that
are small under the SBA’s $18 million
size standard is between 2,829 and
2,940. Further, some of these Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) might not be
independently owned and operated.
Consequently, we estimate that there are
fewer than 2,940 small entity ISPs that
may be affected by the decisions and
rules of the present action.
38. Vendors of Internal Connections—
Communications Equipment
Manufacturers. The Commission has not
developed a definition of small entities
applicable to the manufacturers of
internal network connections. The most
applicable definitions of a small entity
are the definitions under the SBA rules
applicable to manufacturers of ‘‘Radio
and Television Broadcasting and
Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing’’ and ‘‘Other
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing.’’ According to the SBA’s
regulations, manufacturers of these
types of communications equipment
must have 750 or fewer employees in
order to qualify as a small business. The
most recent available Census Bureau
data indicates that there are 1,187
companies with fewer than 1,000
employees in the United States that
manufacture radio and television
broadcasting and communications
equipment, and 271 companies with
less than 1,000 employees that
manufacture other communications
equipment. Some of these
manufacturers might not be
independently owned and operated.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32697
Consequently, we estimate that there are
fewer than 1,458 small entity internal
connections manufacturers that may be
affected by the decisions and rules of
the present action.
39. Vendors of Internal Connections—
Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturers. The SBA has established
a small business size standard for radio
and television broadcasting and wireless
communications equipment
manufacturing. Under this standard,
firms are considered small if they have
750 or fewer employees. Census Bureau
data for 1997 indicate that, for that year,
there were a total of 1,215
establishments in this category. Of
those, there were 1,150 that had
employment under 500, and an
additional 37 that had employment of
500 to 999. The percentage of wireless
equipment manufacturers in this
category is approximately 61 percent, so
the Commission estimates that the
number of wireless equipment
manufacturers with employment under
500 was actually closer to 706, with an
additional 23 establishments having
employment of between 500 and 999.
Given the above, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless
communications equipment
manufacturers are small businesses.
4. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
40. The FNPRM does not result in
additional recordkeeping requirements
for small businesses. To the extent that
new items are added to the ESL,
schools, libraries and service providers
will merely have additional choices of
services eligible for discount when they
voluntarily participate in the E-rate
program. Likewise, removing or not
adding a service to the ESL would have
no additional impact on recordkeeping
requirements.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
41. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance and reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
09JNP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
32698
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules
coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for
small entities.
42. In the FNPRM, we seek comment
on a number of issues related to services
eligible for E-rate discounts, including
issues raised by the commenters that
may not have been addressed as part of
prior ESL proceedings. Specifically, we
determine that anti-virus and anti-spam
software and other services should not
be added to the ESL. We believe that
keeping these services off the ESL will
not have an adverse impact on small
entities since the services were never
funded in the first place. Applicants and
service providers have never had an
expectation that E-rate discounts would
apply to these services and will
therefore not be harmed by a decision to
maintain the status quo. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
43. We also make the tentative
conclusion that web hosting be removed
from the ESL. We propose, however,
that this change should be implemented
in the funding year following the rule
change. This will give applicants
affected by the removal of web hosting
time to find alternative funds for the
service, if necessary. Delaying the
removal of web hosting will also
mitigate any economic impact on those
small entities providing the service. In
addition, we propose additional
outreach from USAC to inform and
educate applicants and service
providers on the change. We seek
comment on these proposals to mitigate
the impact of removing web hosting and
seek comment generally on the
economic impact of this tentative
decision.
44. We also make tentative
conclusions regarding administrative
matters such as restructuring the eligible
services rules, requiring USAC to
submit a proposed draft ESL to the
Commission on March 30th of each
year, and revising our rules to state that
all products and services eligible for Erate support will be named in the ESL.
We believe these changes will have no
economic impact on entities
participating in the E-rate program and,
indeed, will benefit participants by
making the rules and application
process easier to understand and
administer. We welcome, however,
comments from parties that have
opinions different from those reached in
this analysis.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
45. None.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Jun 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
Paperwork Reduction
46. This FNPRM 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).
Ex Parte Presentations
47. 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).
C. Comment Filing Procedures
48. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using: (1) The Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s
eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing
paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than
one docket or rulemaking number
appears in the caption of this
proceeding, filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional
docket or rulemaking number.
• Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• Effective December 28, 2009, all
hand-delivered or messenger-delivered
paper filings for the Commission’s
Secretary must be delivered to FCC
Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room
TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. All
hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
• In addition, one copy of each
comment or reply comment must be
sent to Charles Tyler,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
445 12th Street, SW., Room 5–A452,
Washington, DC 20554; e-mail:
Charles.Tyler@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).
Ordering Clauses
49. Accordingly, 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
through 154, 201 through 205, 254,
303(r), and 403, this further notice of
proposed rulemaking is adopted.
50. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this further notice of proposed
rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54
Communications common carriers,
Health facilities, Infants and children,
Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools,
Telecommunications, Telephone.
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
09JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 54 to read as follows:
PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE
1. The authority citation continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 205,
214, and 254 unless otherwise noted.
Subpart F—Universal Service Support
for Schools and Libraries
2. Section 54.502 is revised to read as
follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
§ 54.502
Supported services.
(a) Telecommunications services. For
purposes of this subpart, supported
telecommunications services provided
by telecommunications carriers include
all commercially available
telecommunications services 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
service shall not be covered by the
universal service support mechanisms.
All supported telecommunications
services are defined and listed in the
Eligible Services List as updated
annually in accordance with § 54.503 of
the Commission’s rules.
(b) Internet access and information
services. For purposes of this subpart,
supported Internet access and
information services include basic
conduit access to the Internet and all the
services defined in § 54.5 of the
Commission’s rules as Internet access.
All supported Internet access and
information services are defined and
listed in the Eligible Services List as
updated annually in accordance with
§ 54.503 of the Commission’s rules.
(c) Internal connections.
(1) For purposes of this subpart, a
service is eligible for support as a
component of an institution’s internal
connections if such service is 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.
Discounts are not available for internal
connections in non-instructional
buildings of a school or school district,
or in administrative buildings of a
library, to the extent that a library
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Jun 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
system has separate administrative
buildings, unless those internal
connections are essential for the
effective transport of information to an
instructional building of a school or to
a non-administrative building of a
library. Internal connections do not
include connections that extend beyond
a single school campus or single library
branch. There is a rebuttable
presumption that a connection does not
constitute an internal connection if it
crosses a public right-of-way. All
supported internal connections are
defined and listed in the Eligible
Services List as updated annually in
accordance with § 54.503 of the
Commission’s rules.
(2) Basic maintenance services. For
purposes of this subpart, basic
maintenance services shall be eligible as
an 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. Basic maintenance
services do not include services that
maintain equipment that is not
supported or that enhance the utility of
equipment beyond the transport of
information, or diagnostic services in
excess of those necessary to maintain
the equipment’s ability to transport
information. All supported basic
maintenance is defined and listed in the
Eligible Services List as updated
annually in accordance with § 54.503 of
the Commission’s rules.
(3) Frequency of discounts for internal
connections services. Each eligible
school or library shall be eligible for
support for internal connections
services, except basic maintenance
services, no more than twice every five
funding years. For the purpose of
determining eligibility, the five-year
period begins in any funding year in
which the school or library receives
discounted internal connections
services other than basic maintenance
services. If a school or library receives
internal connections services other than
basic maintenance services that are
shared with other schools or libraries
(for example, as part of a consortium),
the shared services will be attributed to
the school or library in determining
whether it is eligible for support.
(d) Non-telecommunications carriers
shall be eligible for universal service
support under this subpart for providing
the supported services described in
paragraph (b) and (c) of this section for
eligible schools, libraries, and consortia
including those entities. Such services
provided by non-telecommunications
carriers shall be subject to all the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32699
provisions of this subpart, except
§§ 54.501(a), 54.502(a), and 54.515.
3. Section 54.503 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 54.503
Eligible services list.
(a) The Administrator shall submit by
March 30 of each year a draft list of
services eligible for support, based on
the Commission’s rules, in the following
funding year. The Wireline Competition
Bureau will issue a Public Notice
seeking comment on the Administrator’s
proposed eligible services list. At least
60 days prior to the opening of the
window for the following funding year,
the final list of services eligible for
support will be released.
(b) All supported services are defined
and listed in the Eligible Services List
as updated annually in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 54.506
[Removed and Reserved]
4. Remove and reserve § 54.506.
§§ 54.517 and 54.518
Reserved]
[Removed and
5. Remove and reserve §§ 54.517 and
54.518.
§ 54.522
[Removed and Reserved]
6. Remove and reserve § 54.522.
[FR Doc. 2010–12931 Filed 6–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[CC Docket No. 02–6; GN Docket No. 09–
51; FCC 10–83]
Schools and Libraries Universal
Service Support Mechanism, A
National Broadband Plan for Our
Future
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on several
potential reforms that would cut red
tape by eliminating rules that have not
effectively served their intended
purpose, while continuing to protect
against waste, fraud, and abuse. In
addition, the Commission seeks
comment on how to provide stability
and certainty for the funding of internal
connections that are necessary to deliver
higher bandwidth services to the
classroom and how to expand access to
funding for internal connections for
schools and libraries serving
impoverished populations. Finally, the
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
09JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 9, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32692-32699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12931]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Proposed 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. Specifically, in this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we propose that the
following services should not be eligible for funding under the E-rate
program--separately priced firewall services, anti-virus/anti-spam
software, scheduling services, wireless Internet access applications,
and web hosting. We propose to revise the Commission's rules to
establish that the Commission should not be required to list individual
products and services (e.g., voice mail) in the rules, but that such
products and services will be listed in the Eligible Services List
(ESL). We propose to require the Universal Service Administrative
Company (USAC) to submit any proposed changes to the ESL to the
Commission no later than March 30th of each year. Finally, we propose
to eliminate the requirement that the ESL be released by public notice.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rules are due on or before July 9, 2010
and reply comments are due on or before July 26, 2010. Written comments
on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection
requirements should be submitted on or before August 9, 2010. If you
anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult
to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should
advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CC Docket No. 02-6,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202)
418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy
of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A.
Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via e-mail to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202-395-5167.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
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
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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.
Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. In this FNPRM, we seek comment on whether particular services
should be designated as eligible for E-rate support. Specifically, we
tentatively conclude that the Eligible Services List (ESL) should not
include separately priced firewall services, anti-virus/anti-spam
software, scheduling services, wireless Internet access applications,
and web hosting should not be eligible for funding under the E-rate
program. Alternatively, we propose that web hosting should be eligible
for E-rate program funds as a Priority 2 service. We also propose to
change our rules to establish that the Commission no longer needs to
list individual products and services in the rules, but that such
products and services will be listed in the ESL. We propose to change
our rules to require the Universal Service Administrative Company
(USAC) to submit any proposed changes to the ESL
[[Page 32693]]
to the Commission no later than March 30th of each year. Finally, we
tentatively conclude to revise our rules to eliminate the requirement
that the ESL be released by public notice.
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 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 ESL NPRM (73 FR 48352, August 19, 2008), 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. 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. Services
6. In this FNPRM, we seek comment on the tentative conclusions we
make regarding services discussed in the ESL NPRM that have not been
addressed already. We tentatively conclude that separately priced
firewall services, anti-virus and anti-spam software, teleconferencing
scheduling services, and wireless Internet access applications, should
not be added to the ESL. Additionally, we tentatively conclude that web
hosting should not be eligible for funding under the E-rate program,
or, alternatively, should only be eligible for E-rate program funds as
a Priority 2 service.
7. Firewall. We tentatively conclude that we should decline to add
separately priced firewall services to the ESL. In the 2007 ESL, the
Commission clarified that only basic firewall services that are
provided as a standard component of a vendor's Internet access service
are eligible for E-rate program discounts. The E-rate program already
funds basic firewall services, giving applicants a basic level of
protection. We tentatively conclude that the inclusion of separately
priced firewall services is not essential and may have an adverse
effect on funds available for other already eligible services. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion and also ask that commenters
provide examples of how separately priced firewalls are used by schools
and libraries so that we can determine whether we should reexamine our
tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on a suggested updated
definition of basic firewall services and whether that would provide
better guidance to applicants on what types of basic firewall services
are eligible for E-rate funding.
8. Anti-Virus/Anti-Spam Software. We tentatively conclude that we
should not add anti-virus and anti-spam software to the ESL and seek
comment on this tentative conclusion. Anti-virus and anti-spam software
is not an Internet access service itself but is a separate software
application designed to enhance the operation of Internet access
service. 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. We
tentatively conclude that anti-virus and anti-spam software should not
be added to the list of eligible software under internal connections
because this software does not fit into the categories of software that
are currently on the ESL. Even if anti-virus and anti-spam software are
generally considered necessary for the operation of e-mail, we believe
that such products should not be funded because their addition to the
ESL may have an adverse affect on the funds available for other
services. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.
9. Scheduling Services. We tentatively conclude that we should not
adopt scheduling services as eligible for E-rate funding. As explained
above, only operating system software, e-mail software, and software
for a server-based, shared voice mail system have been approved for E-
rate funding. Scheduling software allows schools and libraries to use
video teleconferencing for distance learning by coordinating between
locations. We believe that scheduling services, while potentially
useful for schools and libraries, does not fit into the categories of
software that are currently on the ESL. We also find that schools and
libraries are able to use video teleconferencing for distance learning
without scheduling services and therefore such services are not
essential. The E-rate program is operated with a finite amount of
funding and we tentatively conclude that funds should not be shifted
from necessary components to add scheduling services to the program. We
seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
10. Web Hosting. Web hosting, as an unbundled Internet access
service, was added to the ESL in October 2003, for funding year 2004.
In funding year 2004, Web hosting was described as an Internet service
provided by an Internet service provider that will host a school or
library's Web site (https://www.schoolname.org) as part of a bundled
service offering, or as an optional service. Because Web hosting is
listed in the ESL as Internet access, it is funded under the E-rate
program as a Priority 1 service. Although Web hosting has been included
as part of Internet access, we now seek comment on whether Web hosting
should
[[Page 32694]]
continue to be eligible for funding under the category of Priority 1
Internet access. We tentatively conclude that Web hosting should not be
eligible for funding under the E-rate program, or, alternatively,
should only be eligible for E-rate program funds as a Priority 2
service. We tentatively conclude that we should remove Web hosting from
the ESL because, while many school districts find Web hosting to be a
useful way to post information for parents and the community, we do not
believe it is essential to the educational purposes of schools and
libraries. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
11. If we decide to retain Web hosting on the ESL, we tentatively
conclude that Web hosting is not Internet access or an information
service and it should move to Priority 2. In funding year 2004, there
was a presumption in the ESL description of Web hosting that Web
hosting was to be provided by an Internet service provider. In today's
marketplace, Web hosting vendors are not necessarily Internet service
providers, and although a basic Web hosting service is comprised of the
physical rental of space on a vendor's server for the hosting of an
applicant's Web site, Web hosting service has greatly evolved with a
variety of optional features. To the extent the Commission adopts the
tentative conclusion that Web hosting service is eligible as a Priority
2 service, what aspects of this service should be eligible and how
should an eligible Priority 2 Web hosting service be described in the
ESL? Also, should contracts between Web hosting vendors and applicants
be itemized to show the pricing of E-rate eligible features and
elements of Web hosting?
12. Wireless Internet Access Applications. We tentatively conclude
that certain wireless Internet access applications including, but not
limited to, services that could be used on school buses to transmit
emergency information, track students, and locate buses with GPS
technology, are ineligible for E-rate support. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. To the extent commenters support E-rate funding
on these services we seek comment on how or why these applications
would serve an educational purpose. Like scheduling software, we find
that wireless Internet access applications are non-essential services
and we tentatively conclude that we should not add them to the ESL at
this time. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
B. Administrative Matters Related to the ESL
13. Commission's Rules Regarding Eligible Services. Currently,
sections 54.502 and 54.503 of the Commission's rules state that
telecommunications carriers may provide telecommunications, Internet
access, and internal connections; section 54.506 defines internal
connections; section 54.517 provides that non-telecommunications
carriers may provide voice mail, Internet access, and internal
connections; and section 54.518 describes the wide area network
services that will be supported. We tentatively conclude that the rules
should be restructured so that all of the provisions relating to
eligible services be located in the same place and seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. We seek comment on the proposed restructure of
these rules.
14. The Commission rules that address the services that are
eligible for E-rate support generally provide that telecommunications,
Internet access, internal connections, and basic maintenance are
eligible for E-rate support. They also, however, refer to specific
services such as voice mail or wide area network. The ESL also lists
specific services that are eligible for E-rate support, e.g., Centrex
is listed as a supported service under the telecommunications services
category. Applicants may be confused by the differences between the
Commission's rules and the ESL. Thus, we propose that the rules
regarding eligible services should make clear that the specific
services eligible for support under the general categories of
telecommunications, Internet access, and internal connections will be
listed in the ESL and not specifically named in the Commission's rules.
We tentatively conclude that any reference to specific services or
products in the rules should be removed and instead the rules should
state that all products and services eligible for E-rate support will
be listed in the ESL. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
15. Section 54.522 of the Commission's rules provides a process by
which the ESL can be changed from funding year to funding year. The
process requires USAC to submit any proposed changes to the ESL for the
following funding year by June 30th of each year to the Commission so
that the Commission can release such proposals by public notice for
comment. Any final changes to the ESL for the following funding year
are voted on and released after this comment period. We find that this
process provides the public with ample notice of any potential changes
to the eligibility status of certain products and services. Requiring
the Commission to change its rules with the addition of each new
service or change to the ESL does not enable USAC and Commission to
keep up with the rapidly changing needs of schools and libraries to
access telecommunications and advanced services. We find that our
tentative conclusion to remove from our rules all references to
specific services eligible for support will provide the Commission with
the flexibility to make E-rate discounts available on new and improved
products and services in a fluid yet predictable environment. We seek
comment on the reasons we have provided for our tentative conclusion.
We also seek comment on any alternative proposals or ideas that would
better inform the public of the services that are eligible for E-rate
support.
16. Because we tentatively conclude that reference to specific
services should not be made in the rules, we propose to remove section
54.518 from our rules. Section 54.518 states that applicants cannot
receive E-rate support to build or purchase a WAN. Instead, the
program's requirements pertaining to WANs will be included in the ESL.
We emphasize that this proposal will not change the current eligibility
of WANs. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion to delete this
rule.
17. In addition, we tentatively conclude that we should change the
name of the category of supported services currently called ``Internet
access'' to ``Internet access and information services'' in the ESL. We
have defined Internet access as ``basic conduit access to the
Internet.'' The current ESL, however, also includes e-mail under the
category of ``Internet access.'' While e-mail uses the Internet, it is
not, itself, Internet access. As such, we believe including
``information services'' in the descriptive title of the category would
more accurately reflect the type of services eligible. We seek comment
on this proposed change.
18. Commission's Rules Regarding the ESL Process. We tentatively
conclude that we should change the process by which the Commission
adopts changes to the ESL. First, we tentatively conclude that USAC
should file its proposed ESL with the Commission no later than March
30th each year. Section 54.522 of the Commission's rules requires USAC
to submit a draft ESL with any proposed changes to the Commission by
June 30th of each year. The Commission then releases a public notice
seeking comment on USAC's proposed ESL. Section 54.522 of the
[[Page 32695]]
Commission's rules requires the Commission to release the final ESL at
least 60 days prior to the opening of the application filing window for
the next E-rate funding year. For the last two years, USAC has opened
the application filing window in early November for funding year 2008
and early December for funding year 2009. The current rule, therefore,
allows approximately three months for the Commission to release the
proposed draft of the ESL, for the public to review and comment on the
draft, and for the Commission to release the final ESL. We have found
that we have not had enough time to complete all of the steps required
by the rule and release the final ESL 60 days prior to the opening of
the application filing window. Indeed, on at least three prior
occasions, as we have done this year, we have waived section 54.522 to
allow USAC to open the application filing window without having to wait
60 days from the release of the final ESL. We find that requiring USAC
to submit the proposed ESL earlier will allow additional time for the
Commission to review the proposal and to review and analyze public
comment on the proposed ESL. In the alternative, we seek comment from
the public on any other methods by which we can streamline this process
and keep it one that allows for ample public notice and opportunities
for public participation.
19. We also tentatively conclude that we should change the
provision in section 54.522 of the Commission's rules that requires the
Commission to issue a public notice seeking comment on USAC's proposed
annual changes to the ESL and another public notice announcing the
release of the final ESL for the upcoming funding year. Specifically,
we believe the rules should be changed to remove the requirement that
the ESL be released as a public notice by the Commission. This will
provide the Commission with flexibility to provide, for example, more
detailed explanations regarding changes to the ESL in an order when it
deems necessary. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
Procedural Matters
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
20. 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.
21. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM. Written public comments
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM.
The Commission will send a copy of this FNPRM, including this IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). In addition, the FNPRM (or summary thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
22. The Commission is required by section 254 of the Act to
promulgate rules to implement the universal service provisions of
section 254. On May 8, 1997, the Commission adopted rules to reform its
system of universal service support mechanisms so that universal
service is preserved and advanced as markets move toward competition.
Specifically, under the schools and libraries universal service support
mechanism, also known as 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. Since the initial
implementation of the E-rate program, USAC has developed various
procedures and guidelines, consistent with the Commission's rules and
requirements, to ensure that funding is provided only for eligible
services.
23. Pursuant to the Commission's rules, the Commission released the
Public Notice seeking comment on USAC's proposed ESL for Funding Year
2010. The ESL indicates whether specific products or services are
eligible for discounts under the E-rate program. In 2009 ESL Public
Notice, we noted that this proceeding is limited to determining what
services are eligible under the Commission's current rules and is
generally not intended to be a vehicle for changing any eligibility
rules. We also noted, however, that the Commission sought comment on
various issues including the eligibility of specific services in the
ESL NPRM released last year and invited parties that wanted their ESL
NPRM comments considered in response to the public notice to refile
those comments.
24. In the FNPRM, we seek comment on the Commission's tentative
conclusion that the ESL should not add separately-priced firewall
services, anti-virus/anti-spam software, scheduling services, and
wireless Internet access applications. The Commission agrees with
commenters that these services are either not eligible under the Act or
are not essential to furthering the goals and purposes of the E-rate
program. Further, we agree with commenters that paying for the discount
on these services would have an adverse effect on services that are
already being funded. We also seek comment on the Commission's
tentative conclusion that Web hosting should not be eligible for
funding under the E-rate program, or, alternatively, should only be
eligible for E-rate program funds as a Priority 2 service. The
Commission does not believe that Web hosting is essential to the
educational purposes of schools and libraries. We also seek comment on
changes to our rules to establish that specific eligible products and
services should be listed in the ESL as opposed to being listed
individually in the rules. We seek comment on our tentative conclusions
on the process for developing the ESL, including requiring the
Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to submit any proposed
changes to the ESL to the Commission no later than March 30th of each
year. Finally, we seek comment on the Commission's tentative conclusion
to revise our rules to eliminate the requirement that the ESL be
released by public notice, which would provide the Commission the
flexibility to release the ESL by order. All of these administrative
changes would bring clarity and transparency to the ESL process and
would benefit all participants in the program.
2. Legal Basis
25. The legal basis for the FNPRM is contained in sections 1
through 4, 201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47
U.S.C. 151 through 154, 201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403,
[[Page 32696]]
and section 1.411 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
Rules May Apply
26. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one that: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Nationwide,
there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses,
according to SBA data. A small organization is generally ``any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2002, there were
approximately 1.6 million small organizations. ``Small governmental
jurisdiction'' generally means ``governments of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,
with a population of less than 50,000.'' Census Bureau data for 2002
indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were
``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most
governmental jurisdictions are small.
27. Small entities potentially affected by the proposals herein
include eligible schools and libraries and the eligible service
providers offering them discounted services, including
telecommunications service providers, Internet Service Providers
(ISPs), and vendors of the services and equipment used for internal
connections.
28. Schools. As noted, ``small entity'' includes non-profit and
small government entities. Under the schools and libraries universal
service support mechanism, which provides support for elementary and
secondary schools, an elementary school is generally ``a non-profit
institutional day or residential school that provides elementary
education, as determined under state law.'' A secondary school is
generally defined as ``a non-profit institutional day or residential
school that provides secondary education, as determined under state
law,'' and not offering education beyond grade 12. For-profit schools,
and schools and libraries with endowments in excess of $50,000,000, are
not eligible to receive discounts under the program. Certain other
statutory definitions apply as well. The SBA has defined for-profit,
elementary and secondary schools having $7 million or less in annual
receipts as small entities. In funding year 2007 approximately 105,500
schools received funding under the schools and libraries universal
service mechanism. Although we are unable to estimate with precision
the number of these entities that would qualify as small entities under
SBA's size standard, we estimate that fewer than 105,500 schools might
be affected annually by our action, under current operation of the
program.
29. Libraries. As noted, ``small entity'' includes non-profit and
small government entities. Under the schools and libraries universal
service support mechanism, which provides support for libraries, the
definition of library includes public libraries, public elementary
school or secondary school libraries, academic libraries, certain
research libraries and private libraries where the state has determined
that the library should be considered a library for purposes of this
definition. For-profit libraries are not eligible to receive discounts
under the program, nor are libraries whose budgets are not completely
separate from any schools. Certain other statutory definitions apply as
well. The SBA has defined for-profit libraries having $7 million or
less in annual receipts as small entities. In funding year 2007
approximately 10,950 libraries received funding under the schools and
libraries universal service mechanism. Although we are unable to
estimate with precision the number of these entities that would qualify
as small entities under SBA's size standard, we estimate that fewer
than 10,950 libraries might be affected annually by our action, under
current operation of the program.
30. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
incumbent local exchange services. The closest size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 1,311 incumbent carriers reported that
they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these
1,311 carriers, an estimated 1,024 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
287 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are
small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
herein.
31. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in
this RFA analysis. A ``small business'' under the RFA is one that,
inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a
telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and
``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of
Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local
exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because
any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore
included small incumbent carriers in this RFA analysis, although we
emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on the Commission's
analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
32. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to
providers of interexchange services (IXCs). The closest applicable
definition under the SBA rules is for wired telecommunications
carriers. This provides that a wired telecommunications carrier is a
small entity if it employs no more than 1,500 employees. According to
the Commission's 2008 Trends Report, 300 companies reported that they
were engaged in the provision of interexchange services. Of these 300
IXCs, an estimated 268 have 1,500 or few employees and 32 have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most
providers of interexchange services are small businesses that may be
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
33. Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically
applicable to competitive access services providers (CAPs). The closest
applicable definition under the SBA rules is for wired
telecommunications carriers. This provides that a wired
telecommunications carrier is a small entity if it employs no more than
1,500 employees. According to the 2008 Trends Report, 1,005 CAPs and
competitive local exchange carriers (competitive LECs) reported that
they were engaged in the provision of competitive local exchange
services. Of these 1,005 CAPs and competitive LECs, an estimated 918
have 1,500 or few employees and 87 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the
[[Page 32697]]
Commission estimates that most providers of competitive exchange
services are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and
policies adopted herein.
34. Wireless Telecommunications. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a definition of small entities specifically for wireless
telephony. The closest definition is the SBA definition for wireless
telecommunications (except satellite). Under this definition, a
cellular licensee is a small entity if it employs no more than 1,500
employees. According to the 2008 Trends Report, 434 providers
classified themselves as providers of wireless telephony, including
cellular telecommunications, Personal Communications Service, and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony Carriers. Of these 437
wireless telephony providers, an estimated 222 have 1,500 or few
employees and 212 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that more than half of the providers of wireless
telephony services are small businesses that may be affected by the
rules and policies adopted herein.
35. Other Wireless Services. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to
wireless services other than wireless telephony. The closest applicable
definition under the SBA rules is again that of wireless
telecommunications (except satellite), under which a service provider
is a small entity if it employs no more than 1,500 employees. According
to the 2008 Trends Report, 69 providers classified themselves as
wireless data carriers or other mobile service providers. Of these 69
providers, an estimated 65 have 1,500 or few employees and 4 have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most
providers of wireless services other than wireless telephony are small
businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
herein.
36. Paging and Messaging Service Providers. In the Paging Third
Report and Order, we developed a small business size standard for
``small businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits and installment payments. A ``small business'' is an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding
three years. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses
commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985
licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small
business status won. At present, there are approximately 24,000
Private-Paging site-specific licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier Paging
licenses. According to Commission data, 281 carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of paging services, messaging services,
or other mobile services. Of those, the Commission estimates that 279
are small, under the SBA approved small business size standard.
37. Internet Service Providers. Under the category of Internet
service provider, a small business is one having annual receipts of $23
million or less. According to SBA data, there are a total of 2,829
firms with annual receipts of less than $10 million, and an additional
111 firms with annual receipts of $10 million or more. Thus, the number
of On-line Information Services firms that are small under the SBA's
$18 million size standard is between 2,829 and 2,940. Further, some of
these Internet Service Providers (ISPs) might not be independently
owned and operated. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than
2,940 small entity ISPs that may be affected by the decisions and rules
of the present action.
38. Vendors of Internal Connections--Communications Equipment
Manufacturers. The Commission has not developed a definition of small
entities applicable to the manufacturers of internal network
connections. The most applicable definitions of a small entity are the
definitions under the SBA rules applicable to manufacturers of ``Radio
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing'' and ``Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing.''
According to the SBA's regulations, manufacturers of these types of
communications equipment must have 750 or fewer employees in order to
qualify as a small business. The most recent available Census Bureau
data indicates that there are 1,187 companies with fewer than 1,000
employees in the United States that manufacture radio and television
broadcasting and communications equipment, and 271 companies with less
than 1,000 employees that manufacture other communications equipment.
Some of these manufacturers might not be independently owned and
operated. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,458
small entity internal connections manufacturers that may be affected by
the decisions and rules of the present action.
39. Vendors of Internal Connections--Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturers. The SBA has established a small business size
standard for radio and television broadcasting and wireless
communications equipment manufacturing. Under this standard, firms are
considered small if they have 750 or fewer employees. Census Bureau
data for 1997 indicate that, for that year, there were a total of 1,215
establishments in this category. Of those, there were 1,150 that had
employment under 500, and an additional 37 that had employment of 500
to 999. The percentage of wireless equipment manufacturers in this
category is approximately 61 percent, so the Commission estimates that
the number of wireless equipment manufacturers with employment under
500 was actually closer to 706, with an additional 23 establishments
having employment of between 500 and 999. Given the above, the
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless communications
equipment manufacturers are small businesses.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
40. The FNPRM does not result in additional recordkeeping
requirements for small businesses. To the extent that new items are
added to the ESL, schools, libraries and service providers will merely
have additional choices of services eligible for discount when they
voluntarily participate in the E-rate program. Likewise, removing or
not adding a service to the ESL would have no additional impact on
recordkeeping requirements.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
41. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance and reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from
[[Page 32698]]
coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for small entities.
42. In the FNPRM, we seek comment on a number of issues related to
services eligible for E-rate discounts, including issues raised by the
commenters that may not have been addressed as part of prior ESL
proceedings. Specifically, we determine that anti-virus and anti-spam
software and other services should not be added to the ESL. We believe
that keeping these services off the ESL will not have an adverse impact
on small entities since the services were never funded in the first
place. Applicants and service providers have never had an expectation
that E-rate discounts would apply to these services and will therefore
not be harmed by a decision to maintain the status quo. We seek comment
on this tentative conclusion.
43. We also make the tentative conclusion that web hosting be
removed from the ESL. We propose, however, that this change should be
implemented in the funding year following the rule change. This will
give applicants affected by the removal of web hosting time to find
alternative funds for the service, if necessary. Delaying the removal
of web hosting will also mitigate any economic impact on those small
entities providing the service. In addition, we propose additional
outreach from USAC to inform and educate applicants and service
providers on the change. We seek comment on these proposals to mitigate
the impact of removing web hosting and seek comment generally on the
economic impact of this tentative decision.
44. We also make tentative conclusions regarding administrative
matters such as restructuring the eligible services rules, requiring
USAC to submit a proposed draft ESL to the Commission on March 30th of
each year, and revising our rules to state that all products and
services eligible for E-rate support will be named in the ESL. We
believe these changes will have no economic impact on entities
participating in the E-rate program and, indeed, will benefit
participants by making the rules and application process easier to
understand and administer. We welcome, however, comments from parties
that have opinions different from those reached in this analysis.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
45. None.
Paperwork Reduction
46. This FNPRM 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).
Ex Parte Presentations
47. 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).
C. Comment Filing Procedures
48. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Effective December 28, 2009, all hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must
be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.
In addition, one copy of each comment or reply comment
must be sent to Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-
A452, Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: Charles.Tyler@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).
Ordering Clauses
49. Accordingly, 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 through 154, 201
through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403, this further notice of proposed
rulemaking is adopted.
50. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this further notice of proposed rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54
Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and
children, Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools,
Telecommunications, Telephone.
[[Page 32699]]
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 54 to read as
follows:
PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 205, 214, and 254 unless
otherwise noted.
Subpart F--Universal Service Support for Schools and Libraries
2. Section 54.502 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 54.502 Supported services.
(a) Telecommunications services. For purposes of this subpart,
supported telecommunications services provided by telecommunications
carriers include all commercially available telecommunications services
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 service shall not be covered by the universal
service support mechanisms. All supported telecommunications services
are defined and listed in the Eligible Services List as updated
annually in accordance with Sec. 54.503 of the Commission's rules.
(b) Internet access and information services. For purposes of this
subpart, supported Internet access and information services include
basic conduit access to the Internet and all the services defined in
Sec. 54.5 of the Commission's rules as Internet access. All supported
Internet access and information services are defined and listed in the
Eligible Services List as updated annually in accordance with Sec.
54.503 of the Commission's rules.
(c) Internal connections.
(1) For purposes of this subpart, a service is eligible for support
as a component of an institution's internal connections if such service
is 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.
Discounts are not available for internal connections in non-
instructional buildings of a school or school district, or in
administrative buildings of a library, to the extent that a library
system has separate administrative buildings, unless those internal
connections are essential for the effective transport of information to
an instructional building of a school or to a non-administrative
building of a library. Internal connections do not include connections
that extend beyond a single school campus or single library branch.
There is a rebuttable presumption that a connection does not constitute
an internal connection if it crosses a public right-of-way. All
supported internal connections are defined and listed in the Eligible
Services List as updated annually in accordance with Sec. 54.503 of
the Commission's rules.
(2) Basic maintenance services. For purposes of this subpart, basic
maintenance services shall be eligible as an 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. Basic maintenance services do not include
services that maintain equipment that is not supported or that enhance
the utility of equipment beyond the transport of information, or
diagnostic services in excess of those necessary to maintain the
equipment's ability to transport information. All supported basic
maintenance is defined and listed in the Eligible Services List as
updated annually in accordance with Sec. 54.503 of the Commission's
rules.
(3) Frequency of discounts for internal connections services. Each
eligible school or library shall be eligible for support for internal
connections services, except basic maintenance services, no more than
twice every five funding years. For the purpose of determining
eligibility, the five-year period begins in any funding year in which
the school or library receives discounted internal connections services
other than basic maintenance services. If a school or library receives
internal connections services other than basic maintenance services
that are shared with other schools or libraries (for example, as part
of a consortium), the shared services will be attributed to the school
or library in determining whether it is eligible for support.
(d) Non-telecommunications carriers shall be eligible for universal
service support under this subpart for providing the supported services
described in paragraph (b) and (c) of this section for eligible
schools, libraries, and consortia including those entities. Such
services provided by non-telecommunications carriers shall be subject
to all the provisions of this subpart, except Sec. Sec. 54.501(a),
54.502(a), and 54.515.
3. Section 54.503 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 54.503 Eligible services list.
(a) The Administrator shall submit by March 30 of each year a draft
list of services eligible for support, based on the Commission's rules,
in the following funding year. The Wireline Competition Bureau will
issue a Public Notice seeking comment on the Administrator's proposed
eligible services list. At least 60 days prior to the opening of the
window for the following funding year, the final list of services
eligible for support will be released.
(b) All supported services are defined and listed in the Eligible
Services List as updated annually in accordance with paragraph (a) of
this section.
Sec. 54.506 [Removed and Reserved]
4. Remove and reserve Sec. 54.506.
Sec. Sec. 54.517 and 54.518 [Removed and Reserved]
5. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec. 54.517 and 54.518.
Sec. 54.522 [Removed and Reserved]
6. Remove and reserve Sec. 54.522.
[FR Doc. 2010-12931 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P