Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism and a National Broadband Plan for Our Future, 56295-56304 [2011-23267]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56295-56304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23267]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[CC Docket No. 02-6, GN Docket No. 09-51; FCC 11-125]


Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism and a 
National Broadband Plan for Our Future

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) adds the statutory language from the Protecting Children 
in the 21st Century Act regarding the education of students about 
appropriate online behavior to the existing Commission rules 
implementing the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) for the 
schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (also known 
as the E-rate program). The Commission also makes minor non-substantive 
revisions to its rules to conform to existing statutory language from 
the CIPA statute where necessary. Finally, the Commission makes minor 
corrections to its Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and Order.

DATES: October 13, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara Voth, Attorney Advisor, at 202-
418-7400, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order (Order) in CC Docket No. 02-6, GN Docket No. 09-51, FCC 11-
125, released on August 11, 2011. The full text of this document is 
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20554.

[[Page 56296]]

I. Introduction

    1. This order adds the statutory language from the Protecting 
Children in the 21st Century Act regarding the education of students 
about appropriate online behavior to the existing Commission rules 
implementing the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) for the 
schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (also known 
as the E-rate program). The Commission's CIPA rules were also 
implemented at the direction of Congress, and school and library E-rate 
applicants that seek to receive discounts on Internet access or 
internal connections have been required to certify their compliance 
with CIPA since 2001. The Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act 
directs E-rate applicants to also certify that their CIPA-required 
Internet safety policies provide for the education of students 
regarding appropriate online behavior including interacting with other 
individuals on social networking Web sites and in chat rooms, and 
regarding cyberbullying awareness and response. We implement this 
statutory language verbatim. We also make minor non-substantive 
revisions to Commission rules to conform to existing statutory language 
from the CIPA statute where necessary. Finally, we make minor 
corrections to the Commission's Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and 
Order, 75 FR 75393, December 3, 2010.

II. Discussion

A. Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act Revisions

    2. Revision to section 54.520(c)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules. 
We revise Sec.  54.520(c)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules to include 
the new certification requirement added by the Protecting Children in 
the 21st Century Act. We revise Sec.  54.520(c)(1)(i) of the 
Commission's rules to add a certification provision that a school's 
Internet safety policy must provide for the education of minors about 
appropriate online behavior, including interacting with other 
individuals on social networking Web sites and in chat rooms and 
cyberbullying awareness and response.
    3. We note that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), released 
November 5, 2009, included a proposed rule that the school's Internet 
safety policy ``must educate minors about appropriate online 
behavior.'' Tech Ed Services raised concerns that the language in the 
proposed rule could be interpreted to require that the actual Internet 
safety policy document itself educate minors about appropriate online 
behavior. In response, we have revised the rule to make clear that the 
Internet safety policy must provide for the education of minors about 
appropriate online behavior. The new rule states: ``This Internet 
safety policy must also include monitoring the online activities of 
minors and must provide for educating minors about appropriate online 
behavior, including interacting with other individuals on social 
networking Web sites and in chat rooms and cyberbullying awareness and 
response.'' We believe this makes clear that, although a school's 
Internet safety policy may include the development and use of 
educational materials, the policy itself does not have to include such 
materials.
    4. As required by the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, 
a school, school board, school district, local education agency, or 
other Administrative Authority of a school receiving E-rate funding for 
Internet access and internal connections must certify on its FCC Form 
486 or FCC Form 479, beginning with funding year 2012, that it has 
updated its Internet safety policy. The update must include provisions 
for educating minors about appropriate online behavior, including 
interacting with other individuals on social networking Web sites and 
in chat rooms, and cyberbullying awareness and response. Although we 
encourage schools to update their Internet safety policies as soon as 
practicable, making this requirement effective for the 2012 funding 
year, which begins July 1, 2012, will give schools adequate time to 
amend their Internet safety policies and to implement procedures to 
comply with the new requirements after the completion of this 
rulemaking proceeding. Unless required by local or state rules, schools 
will not need to issue an additional public notice and hold a hearing 
in order to update their Internet safety policies in accordance with 
the new Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act requirements. We 
also note that although the FCC Forms 486 and 479 do not need to be 
amended because the existing language already incorporates a 
certification of compliance with all of the statutory requirements, the 
instructions to these forms will be revised to list each requirement 
individually, including the requirements we adopt today.
    5. At this time, we decline to define or interpret the terms 
provided in the new statutory language, such as ``social networking'' 
or ``cyberbullying.'' In addition, we will not detail specific 
procedures or curriculum for schools to use in educating students about 
appropriate online behavior because these are determinations that are 
better be made by schools implementing this policy in the first 
instance. Furthermore, section 254(l), is an example of Congress's 
intent to have local authorities make decisions in this area. We 
believe that by not defining terms such as ``cyberbullying'' in this 
proceeding, we are acting in accordance with this intent. We note, 
however, that schools can find a number of resources available to them 
as they prepare their Internet safety policies to provide for the 
education of students about appropriate online behavior. Many of these 
resources are online, including, for example, the ideas and links for 
parents of children that use the Internet supported by 
OnGuardOnline.gov, the Web site the Federal Trade Commission jointly 
developed with the FCC, other federal government offices, and various 
technology industry organizations.

B. Other Proposed Rule Revisions

    6. We also revise certain rules to conform more accurately to the 
existing statutory language, as proposed in the NPRM. We emphasize that 
these revisions do not impose additional obligations on E-rate 
participants, but merely mirror the existing statutory language and 
codify existing statutory requirements. Many of our modifications will 
simplify the application process by including in our rules important 
definitions that we previously required applicants to look up from 
other sources. Contrary to the suggestion of one commenter, E-rate 
participants will not need to undergo new training or re-file any forms 
as a result of our conforming our rules to the existing statutory 
language unless they have been non-compliant with these existing 
obligations. We note that one commenter objected to these rule 
revisions generally on the basis that the revisions are unnecessary and 
will cause confusion. We conclude, however, that these rule revisions 
will eliminate potential confusion by making the rules reflect the 
statutory language more accurately and clarifying all of the CIPA 
obligations.
    7. Our first revisions clarify and add various defined terms 
relating to the CIPA obligations. First, we revise the rules so that 
the definitions of elementary and secondary schools are consistent 
throughout our rules and reflect the exact statutory wording of 20 
U.S.C. 7801(18) and (38). According to this statute, an elementary 
school is ``a nonprofit institutional day or residential school, 
including a public elementary charter school, that provides elementary 
education, as determined under State law.'' A secondary school is ``a

[[Page 56297]]

nonprofit institutional day or residential school, including a public 
secondary charter school, that provides secondary education, as 
determined under State law, except that the term does not include any 
education beyond grade 12.'' At this time, Commission rule Sec.  
54.500, Sec.  54.501, and Sec.  54.504 all contain differently worded 
references to definitions of elementary and secondary schools. We first 
note that the existing definition of elementary school in Sec.  
54.500(c) of the Commission's rules tracks the statutory definition of 
an elementary school. We revise Sec.  54.500(k) of the Commission's 
rules to make it consistent with the statute that a secondary school is 
``a nonprofit institutional day or residential school, including a 
public secondary charter school, that provides secondary education, as 
determined under State law, except that the term does not include any 
education beyond grade 12.'' We also revise Commission's rules Sec.  
54.501(a)(1), Sec.  54.503(c)(2)(i), and Sec.  54.504(a)(1)(i) to refer 
consistently and identically to Sec.  54.500 definitions of elementary 
and secondary schools. We disagree with the ALA's concern that schools 
will be confused about their eligibility if we use the statutory 
definitions in our rules. We believe that it will be easier for 
entities to determine their eligibility because they will only have to 
look at the Commission's rules instead of having also to look at the 
statute.
    8. Second, we revise Sec.  54.520(a)(1) of the Commission's rules 
to add ``school board'' to the definition of entities that are subject 
to CIPA certifications. Although section 254(h) of the Act includes the 
term ``school board'' as an entity to which the CIPA certifications may 
apply, the existing rules do not include this term. We believe that 
this revision clarifies that school boards are authorized to make CIPA 
certifications. We note that although the statute does not include the 
term ``school district'' as an entity to which the CIPA certifications 
apply, existing rules do include the term ``school district.'' We will 
not delete the term ``school district,'' however, to prevent any 
confusion; we will continue to treat a school district as an entity 
that may be authorized to make CIPA certifications.
    9. Third, we revise Sec.  54.520(a)(4) of the Commission's rules to 
add the existing statutory definitions of the terms ``minor,'' 
``obscene,'' ``child pornography,'' ``harmful to minors,'' ``sexual 
act,'' ``sexual contact,'' and ``technology protection measure,'' 
consistent with the statute. Section 54.520 of our rules does not 
currently include the definitions of these terms, but instead refers 
back to the CIPA statute. We find that including the statutory 
definitions of these terms in our rules will make it easier for E-rate 
program participants to understand their CIPA obligations. We disagree 
with ALA's concern that we should not include the definition of 
``minor'' in our rules because the definition of ``minor'' varies among 
the states. The potential confusion caused by so many different 
definitions of ``minor'' among the states is precisely why we should 
clarify that term for purposes of E-rate funding. Regardless of a 
state's definition of a minor, for CIPA purposes, E-rate program 
participants must use the CIPA statutory definition of ``minor'' we now 
set forth in our rules.
    10. Fourth, we revise our rules by adding the statutory provisions 
related to local authorities' rights and obligations regarding 
technology protection measures. We revise Commission's rules Sec. Sec.  
54.520(c)(1)(i) and 54.520(c)(2)(i)--consistent with sections 
254(h)(5)(B)(ii), (h)(5)(C)(ii), (h)(6)(B)(ii), and (h)(6)(C)(ii) of 
the Act--to state that a school or library must enforce the operation 
of technology protection measures while the school or library computers 
with Internet access are being used. Although this is an existing 
obligation that was not codified in our rules previously, we find that 
codification of the obligation is desirable to clarify the CIPA 
responsibilities of E-rate participants.
    11. We further revise Commission's rules Sec.  54.520(c)(1)(i) and 
Sec.  54.520(c)(2)(i) to reflect language in sections 254(h)(5)(D) and 
(h)(6)(D) of the Act that permits an administrator, supervisor, or 
other person authorized by the certifying authority to disable an 
entity's technology protection measure to allow for bona fide research 
or ``other lawful purpose by an adult.'' We note that in the 2001 CIPA 
Order, 66 FR 19394, April 16, 2001, although the Commission 
acknowledged this statutory provision, it declined to adopt any 
implementing rule provision, stating that:

[w]e decline to promulgate rules mandating how entities should 
implement these provisions. Federally-imposed rules directing school 
and library staff when to disable technology protection measures 
would likely be overbroad and imprecise, potentially chilling 
speech, or otherwise confusing schools and libraries about the 
requirements of the statute. We leave such determinations to local 
communities, whom we believe to be most knowledgeable about the 
varying circumstances of schools or libraries within those 
communities.

    The Commission stated at that time that its decision was supported 
by commenter concerns about the difficulty of school or library staff 
in determining whether an adult user was engaging in bona fide research 
or other lawful purposes and would impinge upon staff resources.
    12. We decline to mandate specific methods for disabling technology 
protection measures, but rather codify in our rules the statutory 
language of sections 254(h)(5)(D) and (h)(6)(D). This should make clear 
that the statutory permission to disable technology measures exists 
without imposing undue burdens on schools or libraries regarding how 
this provision should be applied. We agree with the ALA and SECA that 
we should not define ``bona fide research'' because we believe that 
determination should be left to the affected schools and libraries. For 
similar reasons, we also decline to set forth how much disclosure must 
accompany requests for disabling and other matters related to 
disabling. We continue to believe that we should leave these 
determinations to local communities because they are the most 
knowledgeable about the varying circumstances of the schools or 
libraries within their communities.
    13. As required by the statute, we also add a rule provision to 
require local determination of what matter is inappropriate for minors. 
The commenters overwhelmingly support this provision. Among other 
things, the statute states that a determination regarding what matter 
is inappropriate for minors shall be made by the school board, local 
educational agency, library, or other authority responsible for making 
the determination. Although this is mandated by the statute, it is not 
currently in the Commission's rules. We believe codifying this 
statutory provision will provide clarity on the authority of the local 
community to decide what is best for its schools and libraries.
    14. In addition, we take this opportunity to address an issue 
raised by SECA. SECA expressed concern about a situation in which an 
audit administered by Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) 
found that a school violated CIPA requirements because it allowed 
access to Facebook and MySpace. Although it is possible that certain 
individual Facebook or MySpace pages could potentially contain material 
harmful to minors, we do not find that these Web sites are per se 
``harmful to minors'' or fall into one of the categories that schools 
and libraries must block. In addition, the statute states that local 
school and library authorities are the appropriate bodies to determine 
what

[[Page 56298]]

online content is inappropriate for minors accessing the Internet 
through their facilities. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Education 
recently found that social networking Web sites have the potential to 
support student learning, stating that students can ``participate in 
online social networks where people from all over the world share 
ideas, collaborate, and learn new things.'' Declaring such sites 
categorically harmful to minors would be inconsistent with the 
Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act's focus on ``educating 
minors about appropriate online behavior, including interacting with 
other individuals on social networking Web sites and in chat rooms, and 
cyberbullying awareness and response.''
    15. Our next rules pertain to record retention and the obligation 
to produce Internet safety policies. We add a rule provision requiring 
each Internet safety policy that is adopted pursuant to section 254(l) 
of the Act to be made available to the Commission upon request. 
Although this requirement is mandated by the statute, it is not 
currently in the Commission's rules. In adopting this rule, we do not 
intend to withhold E-rate funds pending a review of such policies. We 
also emphasize that the Commission is not mandating a wholesale 
collection of Internet safety policies. An entity would only need to 
produce its Internet safety policy upon request by the Commission. We 
do not anticipate that the Commission would request this information 
with any more frequency than it has before, and therefore do not see 
this rule provision as imposing any new burden.
    16. We find that the maintenance of the Internet safety policy 
should be in accordance with the existing audit and recordkeeping 
requirements of Commission rule Sec.  54.516(a) and existing 
certification number 10 on the FCC Form 486, which require schools and 
libraries to retain documents for at least five years after the last 
day of service delivered in a particular funding year. In applying this 
requirement to Internet safety policies, we conclude that a school or 
library should be required to retain its Internet safety policy 
documentation for a period of five years after the funding year in 
which the policy was relied upon to obtain E-rate funding. For example, 
if a school adopted an Internet safety policy in 2002 and used that 
same policy to make its certification in funding year 2009, the school 
must retain its Internet safety policy documentation for five years 
after the last day of service for funding year 2009.
    17. We also add a rule provision requiring a local public notice 
and a hearing or meeting to address any Internet safety policies newly 
adopted pursuant to CIPA. Although this is mandated by the statute and 
was discussed in the CIPA Order, there is no provision addressing this 
issue in the existing rules. As discussed in the NPRM, this requirement 
only applies to an entity that has no previous Internet safety policy 
or did not provide public notice and a hearing or meeting when it 
adopted its Internet safety policy. Unless required by local or state 
rules, an additional public notice and a hearing or meeting is not 
necessary for amendments to Internet safety policies, including the 
changes to schools' Internet safety policies required by the Protecting 
Children in the 21st Century Act. We understand, however, that a school 
or library might have convened such a hearing or meeting before we 
adopted our record retention rules in August 2004, and may not have 
retained a record of the hearing or meeting. As such, we will not 
consider it a CIPA violation if the hearing or meeting was held prior 
to August 2004, and the entity cannot produce such records. However, 
prospectively, an entity must, at a minimum, keep at least some record 
of when the public notice and hearing or meeting took place (e.g., a 
copy of the meeting agenda, or a newspaper article announcing the 
hearing or meeting). Finally, in response to the concerns of several 
commenters, we conclude that if an entity's existing Internet safety 
policy contains language sufficient to encompass the new requirements 
of the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, then no amendment 
to the policy is required.
    18. We next address SECA's request for clarification on compliance 
and penalties regarding CIPA requirements. SECA requests that the 
Commission instruct USAC that ``technical violations'' of the CIPA 
requirements do not warrant immediate recovery of funds and that 
affected applicants should be given the opportunity to cure any 
omissions. We agree that in certain circumstances, USAC should give 
applicants the opportunity to correct minor errors that could result in 
violations of the Commission's CIPA rules before instituting recovery 
of E-rate funds, but such errors must be immaterial to statutory CIPA 
certification compliance. For example, if a school has complied in 
practice with the CIPA certification it has made with regard to the use 
of its Internet access services by minors, but has inadvertently left 
out one of the details of its practice in its written Internet safety 
policy, we would consider that to be an immaterial error that could be 
cured.
    19. We also revise Commission's rules Sec. Sec.  
54.520(c)(1)(iii)(B), (c)(2)(iii)(B), and (c)(3)(i)(B) to clarify that, 
in the first year of an entity's participation in the E-rate program 
only, the entity's Administrative Authority may certify on the FCC Form 
486 or 479 that it will complete all CIPA requirements by the following 
funding year and still receive funding for the current funding year. 
The text of the existing rules contains an option for a grace period, 
by which an Administrative Authority may certify that it will come into 
compliance with the CIPA requirements by the next funding year, but 
does not specify that this certification option is only applicable to 
entities that are applying for E-rate discounts for the first time. We 
believe this clarification will help new applicants understand their 
CIPA obligations during their first year of E-rate funding. We note 
that ALA expresses concern that parties will be confused by this 
revision. We disagree. As ALA itself states, the FCC Form 486 
instructions go into great detail about the circumstances under which 
an entity may certify that it will come into compliance with the CIPA 
requirements by the next funding year. We also note that USAC has 
extensive guidance on its Web site on compliance with the CIPA 
requirements, including when the grace period applies, and this 
guidance will continue to be available to parties.
    20. Some E-rate recipients have sought guidance regarding the 
potential application of CIPA requirements to the use of portable 
devices owned by students and library patrons, such as laptops and 
cellular telephones, when those devices are used in a school or library 
to obtain Internet access that has been funded by E-rate. We recognize 
that this is an increasingly important issue, as portable Internet 
access devices proliferate in schools and libraries. We believe it may 
be helpful to clarify the appropriate policies in this area, and intend 
to seek public comment in a separate proceeding.
    21. Finally, we take this opportunity to make minor corrections to 
the Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and Order released September 28, 
2010. Among other things, the Commission included dark fiber on the 
Eligible Services List (ESL) and allowed eligible schools and libraries 
to receive support for the lease of fiber, whether lit or dark, as a 
priority one service from any entity. In the discussion of dark fiber, 
the seventh sentence in paragraph 9 currently reads: ``We emphasize 
that

[[Page 56299]]

selecting a telecommunications carrier as a service provider does not 
absolve schools and libraries of their obligation to adhere to the 
Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requirements when they use 
that service to obtain Internet service or access to the Internet.'' We 
revise the last part of that sentence to read: `` * * * when they use 
USF funding to obtain discounted Internet access service.''
    22. In addition, we also correct Commission's rule Sec.  
54.507(g)(1)(i) of the final rules to the Schools and Libraries Sixth 
Report and Order which currently reads: ``(i) Schools and Libraries 
Corporation shall first calculate the demand for telecommunications, 
telecommunications services, voice-mail, and Internet access for all 
discount categories as determined by the schools and libraries discount 
matrix in Sec.  54.505(c) of the Commission's rules. These services 
shall receive first priority for the available funding.'' We revise 
this rule to change ``Schools and Libraries Corporation'' to 
``Administrator'' and to reflect that voice mail, although eligible for 
E-rate discounts, does not need to be listed as an individual eligible 
service in our rules. We revise the rule to read: ``(i) The 
Administrator shall first calculate the demand for services listed 
under the telecommunications services, telecommunications, and Internet 
access categories on the eligible services list for all discount 
levels, as determined by the schools and libraries discount matrix in 
Sec.  54.505(c) of the Commission's rules. These services shall receive 
first priority for the available funding.''

III. Procedural Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared and incorporated in 
the NPRM in CC Docket 02-6. The Commission sought written public 
comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. We 
did not receive any comments specifically directed toward the IRFA. 
This final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

B. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    24. This Report and Order revises the Commission's rules to add a 
new certification for elementary and secondary schools that have 
computers with Internet access and receive discounts under the E-rate 
program, pursuant to the mandate of the Protecting Children in the 21st 
Century Act. Such action is necessary to comply with the Protecting 
Children in the 21st Century Act. We also adopt revisions to related 
Commission rules to reflect existing statutory language more 
accurately. Finally, we make corrections and add a clarification 
related to the Commission's Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and 
Order (FCC 10-175).

C. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    25. No comments specifically addressed the IRFA.

D. 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 Small Business 
Administration (SBA). Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 
29.6 million small businesses, according to the SBA. 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. The term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined 
generally as ``governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, 
school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 
fifty thousand.'' 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.
    28. Schools and 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 
elementary and secondary schools and libraries, 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 libraries, and schools and libraries with 
endowments in excess of $50,000,000, 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, elementary 
and secondary schools and libraries having $6 million or less in annual 
receipts as small entities. In funding year 2007 approximately 105,500 
schools and 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 105,500 schools and 10,950 libraries might be affected annually by 
our action, under current operation of the program.
    29. Telecommunications Service Providers. First, 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. Thus, under this category and 
associated small business size standard, we estimate that the majority 
of entities are small. 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

[[Page 56300]]

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.
    30. Second, 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 fewer employees and 32 have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of 
interexchange services are small businesses.
    31. Third, 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 fewer employees and 87 have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers 
of competitive exchange services are small businesses.
    32. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 
2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, 
broad, economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were 
within the now-superseded categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and 
Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior 
categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet 
available for the new category, we will estimate small business 
prevalence using the prior categories and associated data. For the 
category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 
employees or more. For the category of Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 
employees or more. Thus, we estimate that the majority of wireless 
firms are small.
    33. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications 
services, and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. As noted, 
the SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under the SBA small 
business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to the 2008 Trends Report, 434 carriers reported 
that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 
222 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 212 have more than 1,500 
employees. We have estimated that 222 of these are small under the SBA 
small business size standard.
    34. Common Carrier Paging. As noted, since 2007 the Census Bureau 
has placed paging providers within the broad economic census category 
of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Prior to 
that time, such firms were within the now-superseded category of 
``Paging.'' Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed 
a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for the new category, 
we will estimate small business prevalence using the prior category and 
associated data. The data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 
employees or more. Thus, we estimate that the majority of paging firms 
are small.
    35. In addition, in the Paging Second Report and Order, released 
June 9, 1999, the Commission adopted a size standard for ``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. The SBA has approved this 
definition. An initial auction of Metropolitan Economic Area (MEA) 
licenses was conducted in the year 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses 
auctioned, 985 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business 
status won 440 licenses. A subsequent auction of MEA and Economic Area 
(EA) licenses was held in the year 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses 
auctioned, 5,323 were sold. One hundred thirty-two companies claiming 
small business status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, 
consisting of 8,874 licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in 
all but three of the 51 MEAs, was held in 2003. Seventy-seven bidders 
claiming small or very small business status won 2,093 licenses.
    36. Currently, there are approximately 74,000 Common Carrier Paging 
licenses. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service, 281 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of ``paging 
and messaging'' services. Of these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. We estimate 
that the majority of common carrier paging providers would qualify as 
small entities under the SBA definition.
    37. Internet Service Providers. The 2007 Economic Census places 
these firms, whose services might include voice over Internet protocol 
(VoIP), in either of two categories, depending on whether the service 
is provided over the provider's own telecommunications facilities 
(e.g., cable and DSL ISPs), or over client-supplied telecommunications 
connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs). The former are within the category of 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which has an SBA small business size 
standard of 1,500 or fewer employees. The latter are within the 
category of All Other Telecommunications, which has a size standard of 
annual receipts of $25 million or less. The most current Census Bureau 
data for all such firms, however, are the 2002 data for the previous 
census category called Internet Service Providers. That category had a 
small business size standard of $21 million or less in annual receipts, 
which was revised in late 2005 to $23 million. The 2002 data show that 
there were 2,529 such firms that operated for the entire year. Of 
those, 2,437 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an 
additional 47 firms had receipts of between $10 million and 
$24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of ISP firms 
are small entities.
    38. Vendors of Internal Connections: Telephone Apparatus 
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: 
``This industry comprises

[[Page 56301]]

establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and 
data communications equipment. These products may be standalone or 
board-level components of a larger system. Examples of products made by 
these establishments are central office switching equipment, cordless 
telephones (except cellular), PBX equipment, telephones, telephone 
answering machines, LAN modems, multi-user modems, and other data 
communications equipment, such as bridges, routers, and gateways.'' The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for Telephone 
Apparatus Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 1,000 or fewer 
employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total 
of 518 establishments in this category that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 511 had employment of under 1,000, and an 
additional seven had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Thus, under this 
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
    39. Vendors of Internal Connections: Radio and Television 
Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The 
Census Bureau defines this category as follows: ``This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and 
television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of 
products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving 
antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular 
phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television 
studio and broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for firms in this category, which is: All such 
firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data 
for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,010 had employment 
of under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, 
under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered 
small.
    40. Vendors of Internal Connections: Other Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: 
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
manufacturing communications equipment (except telephone apparatus, and 
radio and television broadcast, and wireless communications 
equipment).'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms 
having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 
2002, there were a total of 503 establishments in this category that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 493 had employment of 
under 500, and an additional 7 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, 
under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered 
small.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    41. Schools and libraries that have computers with Internet access 
must certify that they have in place certain Internet safety policies 
and technology protection measures in order to be eligible for E-rate 
discounts for Internet access and internal connection services. 
Pursuant to the mandate in the Protecting Children in the 21st Century 
Act, the Report and Order revises Sec.  54.520(c)(i) of the 
Commission's rules to add a provision that a school's Internet safety 
policy must include educating minors about appropriate online behavior, 
including interacting with other individuals on social networking Web 
sites and in chat rooms and cyberbullying awareness and response.
    42. In addition, this Report and Order revises certain rules to 
more accurately reflect the provisions of the Act with regard to 
certifications made pursuant to the Children's Internet Protection Act 
(CIPA). Specifically, the rule revisions that may affect small entities 
require: (1) Schools and libraries to enforce the operation of 
technology protection measures during use of computers by minors and 
adults; (2) local determination of what matter is inappropriate for 
minors; (3) schools and libraries to make available to the Commission, 
upon request by the Commission, any Internet safety policy that is 
adopted pursuant to section 254(l) of the Act; and (4) schools and 
libraries to provide public notice and hearing to address any proposed 
Internet safety policy that is adopted pursuant to CIPA.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    43. 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 coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for small 
entities.
    44. With regard to the new certification requirements pursuant to 
the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, we do not believe that 
there will be significant economic impact on small entities. Currently, 
schools and libraries file the FCC Form 486 to certify their compliance 
with the requirements regarding Internet safety policies and technology 
protection measures. Because schools and libraries will continue to use 
the same FCC Form 486 to certify their compliance with these 
requirements, there will be no additional reporting requirements. We 
note that although the FCC Forms 486 and 479 do not need to be amended 
because the existing forms already incorporate a certification of 
compliance with all of the CIPA rules, the instructions to these forms 
will be amended to list each CIPA requirement individually, including 
the requirements we mandate today. The requirement to amend their 
Internet safety policies to include provisions on educating minors 
about appropriate online behavior, including interacting with other 
individuals on social networking Web sites and in chat rooms and 
cyberbullying awareness and response, will require schools to update 
their already existing policies. Making this requirement effective 
beginning July 1, 2012, however, will give schools adequate time to 
amend their Internet safety policies and to implement procedures to 
comply with the new requirements after the effective date of these 
rules.
    45. Several other rule revisions will have little economic impact 
on small entities because schools and libraries have already 
implemented these measures. We acknowledge that we are requiring 
schools and libraries to enforce the operation of technology protection 
measures during use of computers by minors and adults, to provide 
public notice and hearing to address any proposed Internet safety 
policy that is adopted pursuant to CIPA, and that schools and libraries 
make Internet safety policies available upon request by the Commission. 
However, as a practical matter, current E-rate beneficiaries have 
already implemented and have been operating under these requirements, 
even though these statutory requirements are not specifically stated in 
the text of the Commission's rules. For example,

[[Page 56302]]

schools and libraries would have been unable to make the proper CIPA 
certifications unless the technology protection measures have been 
enforced during computer use by minors and adults. In addition, the 
requirement to provide public notice and hearing was discussed 
extensively in the CIPA Order even though an implementing rule was not 
adopted.
    46. With regard to the remaining rule provisions, we believe that 
these rule revisions will have no economic impact on small entities 
because they merely clarify existing definitions and existing 
requirements. For example, the revisions regarding the definitions of 
elementary and secondary schools did not change the definitions, but 
merely clarified that the same definitions were utilized throughout the 
rules, or codified existing statutory definitions. Finally, the 
permission granted to schools and libraries to disable technology 
protection measures to enable access for bona fide research or other 
lawful purpose is not a requirement but may impose a burden on small 
entities if they decide to disable technology measures. We note again, 
however, that current E-rate beneficiaries have already implemented and 
have been operating under these requirements, although these statutory 
requirements were not specifically stated in the text of the 
Commission's rules.

G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    47. None.

H. Report to Congress

    48. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
SBREFA. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and 
Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and the FRFA (or summaries thereof) 
will also be published in the Federal Register.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    49. This document contains revised information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. Specifically, this document requires any school 
receiving E-rate funding to certify that its Internet safety policy 
provides for the education of minors about appropriate online behavior, 
including interacting with other individuals on social networking Web 
sites and in chat rooms and cyberbullying awareness. We have assessed 
the effects of this new certification requirement and find that it will 
not significantly impact the burden on small business. Congress adopted 
this new certification requirement to promote online safety education 
in schools. We also codify the existing statutory requirement that 
schools and libraries make Internet safety policies available upon 
request by the Commission. We have assessed the effects of adding this 
requirement to our rules and find that it will not significantly impact 
the burden on small business because it was an already existing 
statutory requirement with which schools and libraries have had to 
comply. The Commission received preapproval from OMB for this 
information collection requirement on March 25, 2010 (See OMB Control 
No. 3060-0853), and the information collections was adopted as 
proposed. We also note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we 
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.

J. Congressional Review Act

    50. The Commission will include a copy of this report and order in 
a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).

IV. Ordering Clauses

    51. Accordingly, It Is Ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 201-205, 214, 254, and 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sec.  1.411 of the 
Commission's rules, this report and order Is Adopted.
    52. It Is Further Ordered, that pursuant to the authority contained 
in sections 1, 4(i), 201-205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, and Sec. Sec.  54.500 through 54.501, 54.503 
through 54.504, 54.507, and 54.520 of the Commission's rules, Are 
Amended as set forth below, effective thirty (30) days after the 
publication of this report and order in the Federal Register.
    53. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer 
Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of 
the report and order, including the Final 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, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows:

PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE

0
1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 205, 214, and 254 unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  54.500 by revising paragraphs (c) and (k) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  54.500  Terms and definitions.

* * * * *
    (c) Elementary school. An ``elementary school'' means an elementary 
school as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(18), a non-profit institutional day 
or residential school, including a public elementary charter school, 
that provides elementary education, as determined under state law.
* * * * *
    (k) Secondary school. A ``secondary school'' means a secondary 
school as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(38), a non-profit institutional day 
or residential school, including a public secondary charter school, 
that provides secondary education, as determined under state law except 
that the term does not include any education beyond grade 12.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  54.501 by revising the section heading and revising 
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  54.501  Eligibility for services provided by telecommunications 
carriers.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Only schools meeting the statutory definition of ``elementary 
school'' or ``secondary school'' as defined in Sec.  54.500(c) or (k) 
of these rules, and not excluded under paragraphs (a)(2) or (a)(3) of 
this section shall be eligible for discounts on telecommunications and 
other supported services under this subpart.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  54.503 by revising paragraph (c)(2)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  54.503  Competitive bidding requirements.

* * * * *

[[Page 56303]]

    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The schools meet the statutory definition of ``elementary 
school'' or ``secondary school'' as defined in Sec.  54.500(c) or (k) 
of these rules, do not operate as for-profit businesses, and do not 
have endowments exceeding $50 million.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  54.504 by revising paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  54.504  Requests for services.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The schools meet the statutory definition of ``elementary 
school'' or ``secondary school'' as defined in Sec.  54.500(c) or (k) 
of these rules, do not operate as for-profit businesses, and do not 
have endowments exceeding $50 million.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  54.507 by revising paragraph (g)(1)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  54.507  Cap.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The Administrator shall first calculate the demand for services 
listed under the telecommunications services, telecommunications, and 
Internet access categories on the eligible services list for all 
discount levels, as determined by the schools and libraries discount 
matrix in Sec.  54.505(c). These services shall receive first priority 
for the available funding.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  54.520 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4), (c)(1)(i), 
(c)(1)(iii)(B), (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(iii)(B), (c)(3)(i)(B), and by adding 
new paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(5), and (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  54.520  Children's Internet Protection Act certifications 
required from recipients of discounts under the federal universal 
service support mechanism for schools and libraries.

    (a) * * *
    (1) School. For the purposes of the certification requirements of 
this rule, school means school, school board, school district, local 
education agency or other authority responsible for administration of a 
school.
* * * * *
    (4) Statutory definitions.
    (i) The term ``minor'' means any individual who has not attained 
the age of 17 years.
    (ii) The term ``obscene'' has the meaning given such term in 18 
U.S.C. 1460.
    (iii) The term ``child pornography'' has the meaning given such 
term in 18 U.S.C. 2256.
    (iv) The term ``harmful to minors'' means any picture, image, 
graphic image file, or other visual depiction that--
    (A) Taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a 
prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;
    (B) Depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way 
with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated 
sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted 
sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and
    (C) Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, 
or scientific value as to minors.
    (v) The terms ``sexual act'' and ``sexual contact'' have the 
meanings given such terms in 18 U.S.C. 2246.
    (vi) The term ``technology protection measure'' means a specific 
technology that blocks or filters Internet access to the material 
covered by a certification under paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The Internet safety policy adopted and enforced pursuant to 47 
U.S.C. 254(h) must include a technology protection measure that 
protects against Internet access by both adults and minors to visual 
depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or, with respect to use 
of the computers by minors, harmful to minors. The school must enforce 
the operation of the technology protection measure during use of its 
computers with Internet access, although an administrator, supervisor, 
or other person authorized by the certifying authority under paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section may disable the technology protection measure 
concerned, during use by an adult, to enable access for bona fide 
research or other lawful purpose. This Internet safety policy must also 
include monitoring the online activities of minors. Beginning July 1, 
2012, schools' Internet safety policies must provide for educating 
minors about appropriate online behavior, including interacting with 
other individuals on social networking Web sites and in chat rooms and 
cyberbullying awareness and response.
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Pursuant to the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified 
at 47 U.S.C. 254(h) and (l), the recipient(s) of service represented in 
the Funding Request Number(s) on this Form 486, for whom this is the 
first funding year in the federal universal service support mechanism 
for schools and libraries, is (are) undertaking such actions, including 
any necessary procurement procedures, to comply with the requirements 
of CIPA for the next funding year, but has (have) not completed all 
requirements of CIPA for this funding year.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The Internet safety policy adopted and enforced pursuant to 47 
U.S.C. 254(h) must include a technology protection measure that 
protects against Internet access by both adults and minors to visual 
depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or, with respect to use 
of the computers by minors, harmful to minors. The library must enforce 
the operation of the technology protection measure during use of its 
computers with Internet access, although an administrator, supervisor, 
or other person authorized by the certifying authority under paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section may disable the technology protection measure 
concerned, during use by an adult, to enable access for bona fide 
research or other lawful purpose.
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Pursuant to the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified 
at 47 U.S.C. 254(h) and (l), the recipient(s) of service represented in 
the Funding Request Number(s) on this Form 486, for whom this is the 
first funding year in the federal universal service support mechanism 
for schools and libraries, is (are) undertaking such actions, including 
any necessary procurement procedures, to comply with the requirements 
of CIPA for the next funding year, but has (have) not completed all 
requirements of CIPA for this funding year.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Pursuant to the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified 
at 47 U.S.C. 254(h) and (l), the recipient(s) of service under my 
administrative authority and represented in the Funding Request 
Number(s) for which you have requested or received Funding Commitments, 
and for whom this is the first funding year in the federal universal 
service support mechanism for schools and libraries, is (are) 
undertaking such actions, including any necessary procurement 
procedures, to comply with the requirements of CIPA for the next 
funding year, but has (have)

[[Page 56304]]

not completed all requirements of CIPA for this funding year.
* * * * *
    (4) Local determination of content. A determination regarding 
matter inappropriate for minors shall be made by the school board, 
local educational agency, library, or other authority responsible for 
making the determination. No agency or instrumentality of the United 
States Government may establish criteria for making such determination; 
review the determination made by the certifying school, school board, 
school district, local educational agency, library, or other authority; 
or consider the criteria employed by the certifying school, school 
board, school district, local educational agency, library, or other 
authority in the administration of the schools and libraries universal 
service support mechanism.
    (5) Availability for review. Each Internet safety policy adopted 
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 254(l) shall be made available to the Commission, 
upon request from the Commission, by the school, school board, school 
district, local educational agency, library, or other authority 
responsible for adopting such Internet safety policy for purposes of 
the review of such Internet safety policy by the Commission.
* * * * *
    (h) Public notice; hearing or meeting. A school or library shall 
provide reasonable public notice and hold at least one public hearing 
or meeting to address the proposed Internet safety policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-23267 Filed 9-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P