Modernization of the Schools and Libraries “E-Rate” Program, 49159-49204 [2014-18937]
Download as PDF
Vol. 79
Tuesday,
No. 160
August 19, 2014
Part II
Federal Communications Commission
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
47 CFR Part 54
Modernization of the Schools and Libraries ‘‘E-Rate’’ Program; Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49160
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rate-modernization-order. The Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM) that was adopted concurrently
with the Report and Order is published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 13–184; FCC 14–99]
Modernization of the Schools and
Libraries ‘‘E-Rate’’ Program
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) takes major steps to
modernize the E-rate program (more
formally known as the schools and
libraries universal service support
mechanism). Building on the comments
the Commission received in response to
the E-rate Modernization NPRM, and the
E-rate Modernization Public Notice, as
well as recommendations from the
Government Accountability Office
(GAO), the program improvements the
Commission adopts as part of this
document begin the process of
reorienting the E-rate program to focus
on high-speed broadband for our
nation’s schools and libraries.
DATES: Effective September 18, 2014,
except for amendments in
§§ 54.502(b)(2), (3), and (5), 54.503(c),
54.504(a) and (f), 54.507(d), 54.514(a),
54.516(a) through (c), and 54.720(a),
which are subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act and will become effective
upon announcement by the FCC in the
Federal Register of OMB approval of the
subject information collection
requirements; and except for
amendments in §§ 54.500, 54.501(a)(1),
54.502(a), 54.507(a) through (c) and (e)
through (f), 54.516, and 54.570(b) and
(c), which shall become effective on July
1, 2015; and amendments in
§§ 54.504(f)(4) and (5) and 54.514(c),
which shall become effective on July 1,
2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Bachtell or Kate Dumouchel,
Wireline Competition Bureau,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, at (202) 418–7400 or TTY:
(202) 418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order, in WC Docket No. 13–184;
FCC 14–99, adopted on July 11, 2014
and released on July 23, 2014. 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. Or at the
following Internet address: https://
www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-e-
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
I. Introduction
1. In this Report and Order we take
major steps to modernize the E-rate
program. In so doing, we recognize Erate’s extraordinary success as the
federal government’s largest education
technology program. Over the last 17
years, the E-rate program has helped to
ensure that our nation’s schools and
libraries are connected to the digital
world. At the same time, we
acknowledge and embrace our
responsibility to make sure the program
evolves as the needs of schools and
libraries evolve. In particular, the E-rate
program must evolve to focus on
providing support for the high-speed
broadband that schools need to take
advantage of bandwidth-intensive
digital learning technologies and that
libraries need to provide their patrons
with high-speed access to the Internet
on mobile devices as well as desktops.
Access to high-speed broadband is
crucial to improving educational
experiences and expanding
opportunities for all of our nation’s
students, teachers, parents and
communities. Building on the
comments we received in response to
the E-rate Modernization NPRM, 78 FR
51597, August 20, 2013, and the E-rate
Modernization Public Notice, 79 FR
13300, March 10, 2014, as well as
recommendations from the GAO, the
program improvements we adopt as part
of this Report and Order begin the
process of reorienting the E-rate
program to focus on high-speed
broadband for our nation’s schools and
libraries.
2. The record clearly demonstrates the
power of high-speed broadband
connectivity to transform learning.
High-speed broadband, to and within
schools, connects students to cuttingedge learning tools in the areas of
science, technology, engineering and
math (STEM) education, necessary for
preparing them to compete in the global
economy. High-speed broadband also
creates opportunities for customized
learning, by giving our students and
their teachers access to interactive
content, and to assessments and
analytics that provide students, their
teachers, and their parents real-time
information about student performance
while allowing for seamless engagement
between home and school. Finally,
high-speed broadband expands the
reach of our schools and creates
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
opportunities for collaborative distance
learning, providing all students access
to expert instruction, no matter how
small the school they attend or how far
they live from experts in their field of
study.
3. High-speed broadband is also a
critical component of 21st Century
libraries. In many communities,
libraries are the only source of free,
publicly available Internet access. As a
result, high-speed broadband at libraries
provides library patrons, many of whom
have no other Internet access, the ability
to participate in the digital world.
Broadband services at libraries are
crucial for enabling and fostering lifelong learning, and they enable students
at all stages of their education to
perform research and complete their
homework. Broadband at libraries is
also crucial for students studying for
and taking their General Educational
Development (GED) tests and allows
students to take and study for college
and graduate-level courses. Broadband
at libraries enables patrons to seek and
apply for jobs; learn new skills; interact
with federal, state, local, and Tribal
government agencies; search for healthcare and other crucial information;
make well-informed purchasing
decisions; and stay in touch with
friends and family.
4. In adopting this Report and Order,
we recognize the critical role the E-rate
program plays in the lives of our
students and communities and the
importance of ensuring that the program
supports sufficient, equitable, and
predictable support for high-speed
connectivity to and within schools and
libraries. It is a crucial part of the
Commission’s broader mandate to
further broadband deployment and
adoption across our nation. We
therefore adopt a number of the
proposals made in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM and begin the
process of re-focusing the E-rate
program on providing the necessary
support to ensure our nation’s schools
and libraries have affordable access to
high-speed broadband.
5. To maximize the benefits of the Erate program to our nation’s schools and
libraries, we adopt the proposal made in
the E-rate Modernization NPRM to
establish clear goals and measures for
the program. The three goals we adopt
for the E-rate program are: (1) Ensuring
affordable access to high-speed
broadband sufficient to support digital
learning in schools and robust
connectivity for all libraries; (2)
maximizing the cost-effectiveness of
spending for E-rate supported
purchases; and (3) making the E-rate
application process and other E-rate
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
processes fast, simple and efficient. We
also adopt approaches for measuring our
success towards meeting those goals.
6. In addition, we adopt the following
updates to the E-rate program aimed at
furthering each of those goals:
• To ensure affordable access to highspeed broadband sufficient to support
digital learning in schools and robust
connectivity for all libraries, we:
Æ Set an annual funding target of $1
billion for funding for internal
connections needed to support highspeed broadband within schools and
libraries;
Æ test a more equitable approach to
funding internal connections for
applicants who seek support in funding
years 2015 and 2016; and
Æ reorient the E-rate program to focus
on supporting high-speed broadband by
phasing down support for voice services
and eliminating support for other legacy
services.
• To maximize the cost-effectiveness
of spending for E-rate supported
purchases, we:
Æ Adopt transparency measures to
encourage sharing of cost and
connectivity data;
Æ encourage consortia purchasing;
and
Æ emphasize that providers must
offer the lowest corresponding price.
• To make the E-rate application
process and other E-rate processes fast,
simple and efficient, we:
Æ Streamline the application process
by:
D Simplifying the application process
for multi-year contracts;
D exempting low-cost, high-speed
business-class broadband Internet
access services from the competitive
bidding requirements;
D easing the signed contract
requirement;
D removing the technology plan
requirement;
D requiring electronic filings; and
D enabling direct connections between
schools and libraries.
Æ Simplify discount rate calculations
by:
D Requiring a district-wide discount
rate;
D modifying the definition of urban
and rural;
D addressing changes to the national
school lunch program (NSLP); and
D modifying the requirements for
applicants using surveys.
Æ Simplify the invoicing and
disbursement process by:
D Allowing direct invoicing by schools
and libraries; and
D adopting an invoicing deadline.
Æ Create a Tribal consultation,
training and outreach program.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
Æ require the filing of all universal
service appeals initially with USAC.
Æ direct USAC to adopt additional
measures to improve the administration
of the program by:
D Speeding review of applications,
commitment decisions and
disbursements;
D modernizing USAC’s information
technology systems;
D adopting open data policies;
D improving communications with Erate applicants and providers.
Æ Protect against waste, fraud, and
abuse by:
D Extending the document retention
deadline; and
D ensuring auditors and investigators
access to an applicant’s premises upon
request.
7. The most fundamental step we take
today is to overhaul the support system
for internal connections, including the
deployment of high-speed Wi-Fi in
classrooms and libraries nationwide.
When the E-rate program was created,
the idea of wired connections to
classrooms was revolutionary. Today,
students and teachers can and do take
their devices with them wherever they
go, which means they need to have
Internet connectivity throughout their
schools. Likewise, in 1997, desktop
computers offered state of the art
connectivity in libraries. Now, library
patrons bring their own devices and use
those that belong to their libraries. By
modernizing the E-rate program to
expand schools and libraries access to
more predictable E-rate funding that is
sufficient to meet their needs for Wi-Fi
connectivity, and other internal
broadband connections.
8. Of course, Wi-Fi in classrooms and
libraries requires broadband
connectivity to schools and libraries.
We therefore also take steps in this
Report and Order to ensure that all
eligible schools and libraries will
continue to be able to receive E-rate
support to purchase broadband services
to their buildings.
9. At the same time, we are mindful
of the importance of continuing to
improve the E-rate program in order to
achieve the goals we adopt herein. In
order to ensure the E-rate program
evolves to meet the connectivity needs
of our nation’s schools and libraries, we
leave the record open in this proceeding
to allow us to address in the future
those issues raised in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM that we do not
address today. We also issue an
accompanying Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to seek
comment on some additional issues.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49161
II. Performance Goals and Measures
10. Based on overwhelming support
in the record, and consistent with the
Congressional directives in sections
254(b) and (h) of the Communications
Act (the Act), we adopt three goals
modeled on those proposed in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM: (1) Ensuring
affordable access to high-speed
broadband sufficient to support digital
learning in schools and robust
connectivity for all libraries; (2)
maximizing the cost-effectiveness of
spending for E-rate supported
purchases; and (3) making the E-rate
application process and other E-rate
processes fast, simple, and efficient. We
also adopt associated performance
measures and targets to determine
whether we are successfully achieving
these goals. Clearly articulating goals for
the E-rate program, along with specific
performance measures and targets, will
help us focus our efforts as we
modernize the E-rate program, monitor
our progress over time, and adjust
course as needed. In choosing these
goals, performance measures, and
targets, we also recognize the need to be
sufficiently flexible to accommodate the
evolving technological and connectivity
needs of schools and libraries.
11. Establishing clear performance
goals is also consistent with the
Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 (GPRA), which requires
federal agencies to engage in strategic
planning and performance
measurement. In 2007, the Commission
adopted measures to safeguard the
universal service fund (USF or Fund)
from waste, fraud, and abuse as well as
measures to improve the management,
administration, and oversight of the
USF generally. More recently, the
Commission has adopted goals in the
other USF programs it has modernized
over the last few years. In the E-rate
Modernization NPRM, while the
Commission recognized the importance
of these measures, it also acknowledged
the subsequent finding by the GAO that
the E-rate program, specifically, lacked
sufficient performance goals and
measures. In its 2009 report, the GAO
emphasized that successful performance
measures should be tied to goals,
address important aspects of program
performance, and provide useful
information for decision making. The
goals, measures, and targets we adopt
today respond directly to the GAO’s
recommendations and place the E-rate
program on a clear strategic path,
consistent with the GPRA.
12. Throughout this Report and Order,
we use these three goals as guideposts
for our decisions about how to close the
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49162
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
gap between the broadband needs of
schools and libraries and their ability to
obtain those services. As part of the
performance measures, we set
connectivity targets by which we will
evaluate progress towards meeting our
goals. We also adopt reporting
obligations for USAC and for E-rate
program participants that will enable us
to measure progress towards meeting
the goals. While we identify specific
reporting obligations, we delegate
authority to the Bureau, working with
the Office of the Managing Director
(OMD), to finalize the format and timing
of those reporting obligations.
13. Using the adopted goals and
measures, we will, consistent with the
GPRA, monitor the performance of the
E-rate program over time, and regularly
reassess our rules and policies to ensure
that they are continuing to support our
goals. If we find that the E-rate program
is not making progress towards meeting
the performance goals, we will consider
corrective actions. Likewise, to the
extent that the adopted targets and
performance measures do not help us
assess program performance, we will
revisit them.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
A. Ensuring Affordable Access to HighSpeed Broadband Sufficient To Support
Digital Learning in Schools and Robust
Connectivity for All Libraries
1. Goal
14. We adopt as our first goal ensuring
affordable access to high-speed
broadband sufficient to support digital
learning in schools and robust
connectivity for all libraries. This goal is
widely supported by commenters and
implements Congress’s directive in
section 254(h) of the Act that the
Commission ‘‘enhance access to
advanced telecommunications and
information services’’ to schools and
libraries ‘‘to the extent technically
feasible and economically reasonable,’’
and determine a discount level for all Erate funded services that is ‘‘appropriate
and necessary to ensure affordable
access to and use of such services.’’
15. Our record demonstrates that
high-speed broadband is essential for
students, teachers, and library patrons
seeking to take advantage of the rapidly
expanding opportunities for interactive
digital learning. As the Commission
observed in the E-rate Modernization
NPRM, the availability of high-speed
broadband in schools transforms
learning opportunities and expands
school boundaries by providing all
students access to high-quality courses
and expert instruction. We also agree
with commenters that high-speed
broadband connections should be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
available to students and teachers
throughout a school, enabling them to
utilize online materials and blended
learning throughout the day and as part
of their curriculum.
16. High-speed broadband is also
critical in libraries, where it provides
patrons with the ability to access the
Internet, search for and apply for jobs,
engage with governmental entities, learn
new skills, and engage in life-long
learning. High-speed broadband to and
within libraries is especially important
in communities where many lack home
access to broadband, including minority
and low-income communities. Libraries
in these communities provide
broadband access during non-school
hours to students who do not have
home access to broadband.
17. The record demonstrates that
schools and libraries, recognizing the
importance of high-speed broadband to
utilize the variety of Wi-Fi-enabled
devices for educational purposes, are
racing to deploy and upgrade their
networks. Specifically, schools and
libraries are working to upgrade local
area networks (LANs) and wireless local
area networks (WLANs or Wi-Fi
networks) to deliver high-speed
broadband to every student and patron
device. School districts are increasingly
implementing one-to-one student to
device initiatives and bring your own
device (BYOD) programs that require
high-density Wi-Fi coverage in every
classroom and common area. The
WLAN upgrades necessary to support
one-to-one digital learning may include
upgraded switches, wireless routers, Cat
6 or fiber cabling, and 802.11n (or
better) wireless access points (WAPs).
Though the increasing number of Wi-Fienabled devices in schools provides
exciting educational possibilities, 57
percent of school districts responding to
a recent survey by the Consortium on
School Networking do not believe that
they have Wi-Fi capacity capable of
handling a one-to-one deployment.
18. Libraries are also seeing a rapid
increase in bandwidth demand driven
by Wi-Fi-enabled devices and the
public’s need for broadband access. The
percentage of libraries providing free
Wi-Fi to the public grew from 37
percent in 2006 to 91 percent in 2012.
Several commenters note that the public
library is sometimes the only place
offering free Internet access to the
community. Many libraries report that
patron-owned devices connected to
their network will soon surpass libraryprovided devices. New technologies
such as digital media labs, interactive
learning tools for adult education, and
videoconferencing services also
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
contribute to increasing bandwidth
demand in libraries.
19. Finally, it is also crucial that highspeed broadband to schools and
libraries be affordable, consistent with
section 254(b)(1). The record makes
clear that, in some areas today, schools
and libraries are unable to afford highspeed broadband services or the services
they can afford provide insufficient
bandwidth to support digital learning or
provide their patrons with robust
Internet access. We have collected
voluminous data on the current state of
connectivity to schools and libraries,
and the prices schools and applicants
are paying for their connectivity. The
record reveals a wide variance in the
speed and price of connectivity at
schools and libraries nationwide.
Location, access to fiber connections,
financial resources, access to a research
and education network (REN), statewide
or regional coordination, ISP
competition, and a well-informed IT
staff are among the many factors that
can affect a school’s or library’s ability
to procure high-speed connectivity at a
reasonable price.
2. Measures
20. We will evaluate progress towards
our first goal by comparing connectivity
to and within schools and libraries with
widely accepted connectivity targets
that are based on digital learning and
library needs. As illustrated in Figure 2,
the connectivity needs of schools can be
divided into three components:
• Internet Access—School districts
and some library systems purchase
Internet access for the entire district or
system at a single point of aggregation.
For the purposes of this measure, we
refer to ‘‘Internet access’’ as the
connection or connections that allow
traffic to flow from that aggregation
point to the public Internet. As part of
the purchase of Internet access, the
school district (or library system) may
purchase dedicated connectivity (e.g.,
dedicated transport) from its point of
aggregation to its Internet Service
Provider’s (ISP’s) point of presence. For
schools and libraries that are not
connected to a district Wide Area
Networking (WAN), Internet access
simply refers to the school’s or library’s
direct connection to the public Internet.
• WAN/Last-Mile—As just described,
school districts and library systems
frequently connect individual schools
and libraries to a central aggregation
point, such as a district, county, or
regional data hub, that hosts the Internet
demarcation point for the entire district,
county, regional, or library system. We
refer to these connections as WAN or
last mile connections.
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
49163
user device. Internal connections
include Wi-Fi.
measuring success towards the targets
we set today. Large school districts often
keep a significant amount of traffic on
their internal networks and are able to
oversubscribe Internet connections,
thereby requiring less per-student
Internet access bandwidth. For example,
the Los Angeles Unified School
District’s (LAUSD) network has
approximately 750,000 total users and
LAUSD is implementing a district-wide
one-to-one initiative. LAUSD anticipates
that 90 Gbps Internet access
connectivity, or approximately 120
Mbps per 1,000 students, will deliver
sufficient bandwidth to every classroom
and device with the help of bandwidth
optimization measures that compress
data and eliminate redundant traffic. We
will continue to analyze data on
broadband demand.
24. This ongoing examination of our
Internet connectivity targets should
include regular input from schools and
libraries. We therefore direct the Bureau
to seek, as part of the application
process, feedback from schools and
libraries on the sufficiency of their
Internet access bandwidth to meet their
needs. The Bureau will consider all
responses, in conjunction with usage
and demand data, when refining the
Internet connectivity targets.
25. With respect to libraries, we
initially adopt as a bandwidth target the
American Library Association’s
recommendation that all libraries that
serve fewer than 50,000 people have
broadband speeds of at least 100 Mbps
and all libraries that serve 50,000 people
or more have broadband speeds of at
least 1 Gbps. We agree with commenters
that the size of the community served by
a library must factor into the library
target.
26. Affordability. To measure
affordability, we will track pricing as a
function of bandwidth. We direct the
Bureau, working with OMD and USAC,
to regularly report normalized pricing
(e.g., price per Mbps) for Internet access
connectivity and to identify any
outliers.
a. Internet Access
22. Connectivity Targets. We adopt
the State Education Technology
Directors Association’s (SETDA) target
recommendation of Internet access for
schools of at least 100 Mbps per 1,000
students and staff (users) in the short
term and 1 Gbps Internet access per
1,000 users in the longer term. We agree
with those commenters who support
both the shorter and longer-term
connectivity SETDA targets as reflecting
schools’ bandwidth needs as they
increasingly adopt digital learning
strategies and one-to-one device
initiatives. SETDA’s long-term targets
are also consistent with President
Obama’s initiative to connect 99 percent
of students to high-speed broadband
within five years.
23. We will measure Internet
connectivity at the district level for
school districts and at the school level
for schools that are not members of a
district (e.g., private schools). We
recognize that the SETDA target for
Internet access connectivity may not be
appropriate for every school or school
district, especially very large or very
small districts or individual schools,
and will take that into account when
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
b. WAN
27. Connectivity Targets. We adopt as
a target for WAN connectivity the total
number of schools that have a
connection capable of providing a
dedicated data service scalable to the
SETDA long-term WAN target of 10
Gbps per 1,000 students. At this time,
the vast majority of districts and
libraries that operate WANs do not have
demand for, and therefore do not
purchase, 10 Gbps circuits. Indeed,
schools and districts have varying
broadband needs that will increase at
different rates. For example, some
elementary schools may not require the
same bandwidth per student as middle
or high schools. Very small schools with
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
ER19AU14.000
the edge of a school or library to the
actual student, faculty, or patron end-
21. For each of these three network
components, we adopt separate
measures of progress, including distinct
connectivity targets.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
• Internal Connections—This
category encompasses the infrastructure
necessary to deliver Internet access from
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49164
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
fewer than 100 students, particularly
those that are part of small districts,
may not require WAN connections
scalable to 1 Gbps (equivalent to 10
Gbps per 1,000 students). However, in
some instances small schools in small
districts may require more bandwidth
per student because they may not be
able to take advantage of high
oversubscription ratios or conserve
bandwidth by using network
optimization tools to the same extent as
larger schools and larger districts.
Conversely, large school districts may
be able to optimize their networks to
deliver very high speed broadband to
the classroom without having WAN
connectivity of 10 Gbps per 1,000
students. We therefore adopt a target
that focuses on the scalable capacity of
school district WAN connections to 10
Gbps per 1,000 students. In most cases,
a 1 Gbps fiber connection can be readily
scaled to 10 Gbps with upgraded
networking equipment.
28. The WAN connectivity target that
we adopt today is the result of careful
analysis of the record and our
programmatic experience. Several
commenters agree that the SETDA WAN
targets accurately reflect the rapidly
increasing broadband demand in
schools. Others argue that the SETDA
WAN targets are too low given the
increasing bandwidth demands of
standardized testing, educational
applications, streaming video, and the
growing number of Wi-Fi-enabled
devices in schools. Many school
districts report that they have doubled
their WAN bandwidth in recent years
and are planning for future increases.
Commenters opposed to adoption of the
SETDA WAN targets express concerns
about uniform targets for all schools
because districts have widely varying
student populations, broadband
availability, and financial resources.
Other commenters recommend that the
Commission conduct a comprehensive
analysis of schools’ actual broadband
needs before establishing specific
bandwidth targets.
29. We find that a WAN connectivity
target measured by the capacity of
connections available to schools
properly balances the concerns
identified by commenters opposed to
the SETDA bandwidth targets with the
need to ensure that all schools have
affordable access to high-speed
broadband that supports digital
learning. Several factors are driving the
need to increase bandwidth to and
within schools. School districts across
the country are implementing one-toone and BYOD programs that require
more robust connectivity. Cisco notes
that the density of devices and demand
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
on the network in many schools
surpasses the demand of other highdensity environments such as hotels,
restaurants, and corporate offices. The
peak bandwidth usage of media-rich
curriculum and streaming video
applications far exceeds the usage of
basic web browsing and email. Online
assessments will require high-speed
connections that are also highly reliable
and secure. A target of ensuring that all
schools connected to WANs have a
connection scalable to 10 Gbps per
1,000 students will ensure that schools
have access to bandwidth sufficient to
meet growing demand while
maintaining the flexibility to purchase
the bandwidth that meets their needs.
30. We direct the Bureau to continue
analyzing data on WAN connectivity.
As with the Internet connectivity
targets, this ongoing examination should
consider input from schools and
libraries. We therefore direct the Bureau
to seek feedback from schools and
libraries, as part of the E-rate
application process, on its WAN
connectivity and whether its WAN
provides sufficient bandwidth to meet
the schools’ and libraries’ needs.
31. For libraries, our record is not
sufficiently developed to establish a
performance measure and a WAN
connectivity target at this time.
However, to the extent that libraries are
connected by a WAN, similar to our
approach with schools, we will measure
the total number of libraries that have a
connection capable of providing a data
service scalable to at least 10 Gbps.
32. Affordability. As with Internet
access, we will measure affordability of
WAN connections by tracking pricing as
a function of bandwidth. We also direct
the Bureau, working with OMD and
USAC, to regularly report normalized
pricing (e.g., price per Mbps) for WAN
connectivity and to identify any
outliers.
c. Internal Connections
33. Connectivity Targets. Pending the
development of a suitable available
bandwidth measure for internal
connectivity, we find that a survey of
school districts and libraries is the best
method to gauge the sufficiency of
internal connections at this time. Our
record is not sufficiently well developed
at this time to allow us to identify the
appropriate level of bandwidth per
device in either schools or libraries. We
are also concerned that schools and
libraries would find such a measure
difficult to report, as the responsible
individuals may not have access to the
necessary technical data. We therefore
decline to adopt such a measure at this
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
time, but direct the Bureau to continue
to develop the record on this issue.
34. Several commenters emphasize
that Wi-Fi performance is best measured
by throughput to the student or library
patron device rather than classroom or
library coverage. Other commenters
suggest that the high-density Wi-Fi
demands of schools require at least one
high-capacity wireless access point
(WAP) per classroom. Library
commenters discuss increasing Wi-Fi
demand, but generally did not endorse
specific Wi-Fi targets. At this time, we
do not think counting the number of
WAPs is the right approach to
measuring connectivity within schools
and libraries. Several unique
considerations impact WLAN design.
For example, some school districts opt
for very high-capacity WAPs that
deliver ample bandwidth to multiple
classrooms, while others have installed
multiple lower-speed WAPs per
classroom. Distribution of WAPs in
libraries depends on specific factors
such as user density and building
design. Therefore, we agree with
commenters that available bandwidth
per device is a more suitable measure to
determine whether internal connections
are sufficient to support the needs of
each individual user at a school or
library. However, we need further
information from schools and libraries
before we adopt a specific measure. We
therefore direct the Bureau to seek
feedback from schools and libraries, as
part of the survey, on the sufficiency of
their LAN/WLAN capacity and coverage
to support the educational or library
activities conducted at their school or
library site. The answer to this question
will help provide the Commission with
insight on progress towards the stated
goal pending the development of a more
technical measure.
35. Affordability. Consistent with our
decision to use a survey to measure
internal connections availability
pending the development of a more
precise measure, we direct the Bureau,
as part of the survey, to also seek
feedback from those schools and
libraries that have insufficient WLAN
capacity and coverage to support the
educational or library activities
conducted at their school or library site
as to the reason for the lack of sufficient
capacity and coverage (e.g., affordability
of equipment, or lack of demand for
Wi-Fi).
3. Reporting and Further Development
of Measures and Targets
36. We direct the Bureau to revise the
information collections from E-rate
applicants and vendors to collect data
regarding the specific measures
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
adopted. The Bureau should analyze
data collected from applicants to track
progress toward meeting program goals
and to inform revisions to the
performance measures and E-rate
program rules, and if necessary, to the
goals themselves. We also agree with
commenters that data should be
publicly accessible so that applicants
can make informed decisions regarding
broadband purchasing and network
design.
37. In addition to the connectivity and
affordability measures adopted, we
agree with commenters who recommend
that the Commission evaluate actual
bandwidth usage and network
performance statistics to continually
refine our connectivity targets over time.
Digital education and the technologies
that deliver it are rapidly evolving. In
such a dynamic environment, it is
important that we understand changes
in the bandwidth demands of school
and library networks supported by Erate as well as the performance of those
networks. We direct the Bureau to work
with school districts and libraries to
develop network measurement methods
that gather data on network usage and
performance.
B. Maximizing the Cost-Effectiveness of
Spending for E-Rate Supported
Purchases
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
1. Goal
38. We adopt as our second goal
maximizing the cost-effectiveness of
spending for E-rate supported
purchases, thereby minimizing the
contribution burden on consumers and
businesses and maximizing the benefit
of each dollar spent on services for
schools and libraries. Our rules require
that applicants ‘‘select the most costeffective service offering.’’ Moreover,
when evaluating bids, applicants ‘‘may
consider relevant factors other than the
pre-discount prices . . . , but price
should be the primary factor
considered.’’ Commenters broadly
support the Commission’s proposal to
adopt cost-effectiveness as a goal of the
E-rate program, in recognition of the
limited amount of E-rate funds available
to meet the connectivity needs of all
schools and libraries throughout the
nation. This goal is also consistent with
section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Act, which
requires that support to schools and
libraries be ‘‘economically reasonable.’’
As the Commission recognized in the Erate Modernization NPRM, we have a
‘‘responsibility to be a prudent guardian
of the public’s resources.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
2. Measures
39. We will focus our evaluation of
progress towards this goal by measuring
the prices paid for the E-rate services
delivered to schools and libraries. We
will separately measure and track the
prices paid for the E-rate services
delivered to schools and libraries for
connections to and for connections
within schools and libraries. Detailed
pricing information is essential to our
goal of maximizing cost-effectiveness as
well as ‘‘affordability’’ under our first
goal. We thus direct the Bureau and
OMD working with USAC, as necessary,
to develop the process by which we will
measure, track, and report on the prices
paid for E-rate services. In addition, we
will continue to monitor the results of
USAC’s audits and other reports to track
progress in reducing improper payments
and waste, fraud and abuse.
40. For connectivity to school and
library locations, we will measure and
report on prices paid as a function of
bandwidth (e.g., dollars per Mbps) and
also as a function of number of users (or
unique devices). In addition, we will
track pricing as a function of various
potential cost drivers, which may
include physical layer type (e.g., fiber,
copper, coax, fixed wireless), service
type (e.g., DSL, cable modem, metro
Ethernet, Internet access), geography
(e.g., rural, urban), carrier, carrier type,
and purchasing mechanism (e.g.,
individual school, district, regional
consortium).
41. An equally important component
of cost-effectiveness is the matching of
capacity purchased with need. We
direct the Bureau, working with USAC,
to develop and maintain best practices
and benchmarks regarding network
utilization, network architectures,
network performance, and network
optimization and management.
42. For connectivity within schools
and libraries, we will measure and
report pricing as a function of number
of users or unique devices. We will
track pricing of eligible expenses
associated with LANs and WLANs (e.g.,
Wi-Fi), including pricing of eligible
network components (e.g., switches,
routers, wireless access points, cabling),
managed services, and other eligible
services associated with LANs and
WLANs. In addition to tracking the
pricing and capacity, we will seek to
track utilization and performance of
these internal connections to more fully
measure the value delivered with E-rate
support. We will also track replacement
and upgrade cycles and LAN/WLAN
architectures to accurately measure costeffectiveness.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49165
C. Making the E-Rrate Application
Process and Other E-Rate Processes
Fast, Simple and Efficient
1. Goal
43. We adopt as our third goal making
the E-rate application process and other
E-rate processes fast, simple, and
efficient. Each year, USAC reviews tens
of thousands of funding requests from
schools and libraries, and processes
thousands of appeals, invoice requests,
deadline extension requests, and
additional inquiries from schools,
libraries, and other parties requesting
information. Simplifying and improving
these procedures will help applicants
receive their funding in a timely
fashion, which will allow them to plan
better and maximize the impact of their
support. Simplification of the E-rate
application process also eases the
administrative burden on applicants—
which is particularly important for
smaller schools and libraries that lack
extensive administrative support.
Conversely, complexity and delay
discourage participation and ultimately
result in fewer schools and libraries
fully investing in needed high-speed
broadband connections.
44. Commenters overwhelmingly
agree that making E-rate process fast,
simple, and efficient is critical to the
overall success of E-rate. Commenters
specifically highlight, among other
things, the importance of simplicity and
transparency in the application
submission and review process, and the
need for timeliness in making funding
commitments and paying invoices,
reclaiming unused funds, and
completion of the application and
selective review processes. We
recognize that there are a number of
considerations that compete with our
efforts to simplify the program for
applicants, speed processing of
applications and appeals, and minimize
overhead costs. For example, we will
need to appropriately balance our need
for data to appropriately monitor
program performance, with our efforts
to minimize the application burden on
applicants. Likewise, we must ensure
that a simplified E-rate program does
not open the door to waste, fraud, or
abuse.
2. Measures
45. In 2007, the Commission adopted
certain E-rate performance
measurements related to the application
and invoicing processes and the
resolution of appeals submitted to
USAC. Building on that work, in the Erate Modernization NPRM the
Commission sought comment on what
additional measures we should adopt to
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49166
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
support the goal of making the E-rate
application process and other E-rate
processes fast, simple and efficient.
While commenters are very supportive
of streamlining and simplifying the
administrative process, few offer actual
performance measures to support this
goal.
46. Based on our experience with the
E-rate program, as an initial measure,
we will evaluate progress towards our
third goal by measuring the timely
processing of funding commitments to
eligible schools and libraries by USAC
by tracking the processing time against
an established target. Working with
OMD, USAC has dramatically improved
its rate of application processing for this
funding year (funding year 2014). In
both funding year 2013 and 2014, USAC
received applications requesting
between $2.6 and $2.7 billion in priority
one E-rate support. By July 1, 2013,
USAC had only committed
approximately $181 million in support.
By contrast, as of July 1, 2014, USAC
has already committed approximately
$1.22 billion in support. In 2013, USAC
did not reach $1 billion in commitments
until October.
47. We applaud the progress USAC
and OMD have made in improving the
timeliness of processing of funding
commitments to eligible schools and
libraries. In light of this progress, and to
ensure continued progress and further
expedite the commitment process and
increase the timeliness of funding
commitment decisions, we direct USAC
to aim to issue funding commitments or
denials for all ‘‘workable’’ funding
requests by September 1st of each
funding year. A September 1st deadline
provides USAC with approximately five
months beyond the application filing
window deadline to review all timely
filed and complete funding requests and
gives applicants certainty regarding a
funding decision for those timely filed
and complete requests by the beginning
of the school year. ‘‘Workable’’ means
that a funding request is filed timely
and is complete, with all necessary
information, to enable a reviewer to
make the appropriate funding decision,
and the applicant, provider, and any
consultants are not subject to
investigation, audit, or other similar
reason for delay in a funding decision.
Funding requests from applicants that
decline to respond to USAC inquiries
over the summer may be considered
‘‘unworkable’’ for purposes of this
performance goal, though USAC will
process these applications as quickly as
possible when school staff return for the
year. USAC shall continue to report at
least monthly on its progress toward
this goal, based on the dollars of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
requests processed and the total count
of schools and libraries represented in
those requests, as well as any other
specific metrics OMD identifies, and on
any obstacles to achieving the
application processing target.
48. In adopting this target, we
recognize that even ‘‘workable’’ funding
requests may be time consuming for
USAC to process and may, after initial
review, require further input from the
applicant before USAC can issue a
funding commitment. Our adoption of a
specific application processing target
should not affect in any way USAC’s
contacts with applicants to seek
additional information concerning a
funding request and USAC’s thorough
review of each application. USAC must
continue to provide applicants with an
opportunity to respond to their
questions. While we seek to expedite
USAC’s processing of applications, we
remain committed to guarding against
waste, fraud, and abuse in the E-rate
program. We note that failure of an
applicant to timely respond to requested
information could constitute an obstacle
to receiving a funding decision by the
target date. Therefore, we strongly
encourage applicants to timely respond
to USAC requests for information.
49. We will also evaluate our progress
towards the third goal by having USAC
survey applicants and service providers
about their experience with the
program. A survey will provide useful
and useable information to USAC and to
the Commission about what is working
and what needs to be improved.
50. These performance measurements,
taken together, will help provide greater
certainty to applicants and providers,
and will assist applicants in more
timely deployment of eligible services.
Additionally, these measures will help
to ensure that the E-rate program is
operated as efficiently as possible by
minimizing the need for the submission
and review of other requests, such as
service delivery deadline extensions,
service substitutions, service provider
identification number (SPIN) changes
and FCC Form 500 filings to change
contract expiration dates, which are
often necessitated due to the delay in
the issuance of timely funding
commitment decisions letters.
III. Ensuring Affordable Access to HighSpeed Broadband Sufficient To Support
Digital Learning in Schools and Robust
Connectivity for All Libraries
51. Having set our goals for the E-rate
program, we now turn to the process of
modernizing the program to meet each
of those goals. In this section, we begin
to update the E-rate program to ensure
that schools and libraries have
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
affordable access to the high-speed
broadband connections needed for
digital learning. The record in this
proceeding and our own analysis of the
program lead us to a particular focus on
the internal connections, including WiFi, needed for robust broadband
connectivity in all classrooms and
libraries.
52. Wi-Fi is a transformative
technology for education, allowing
schools and libraries to transition from
computer labs to one-to-one digital
learning. Yet, in most funding years, the
E-rate program has been able to provide
priority two support for internal
connections, including Wi-Fi, only to
schools and libraries entitled to the
highest discount levels. In funding year
2012, for instance, the program
committed approximately $800 million
for internal connections and was only
able to fund applicants at the 90 percent
discount level. As a result, nearly 60
percent of that funding went to urban
applicants—almost double the share of
students in urban schools nationwide.
In 2013, for the first time ever, no E-rate
support was available for internal
connections.
53. By contrast, the E-rate program
has always been able to meet demand
for services that provide connectivity to
schools and libraries. However, only
about half of the $2.4 billion E-rate
budget is used to support priority one
funding requests focused on broadband
connectivity to schools and libraries.
54. In short, the E-rate program has
become increasingly ill-equipped to
meet the demands of the modern
classroom and library. Therefore, we
now act to modernize E-rate to ensure
more equitable, reliable support for WiFi networks, and other internal
connections supporting broadband
services, within schools and libraries.
While we focus in this Report and Order
on providing funding for internal
connections, we remain committed to
ensuring schools and libraries have
high-speed connections to their
buildings. In order to help ensure E-rate
funding is available to support highspeed broadband to and within schools
and libraries, we also eliminate support
for certain legacy, non-broadband
services to help free up funding for
these internal broadband connections.
We begin, however, with a short review
of our legal authority to set the list of
E-rate supported services and define the
mechanisms of E-rate support.
A. Legal Authority
55. Sections 254(c)(1), (c)(3), (h)(1)(B),
and (h)(2) of the Communications Act
collectively grant the Commission broad
and flexible authority to set the list of
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
services that will be supported for
eligible schools and libraries, as well as
to design the specific mechanisms of
support. This authority reflects
Congress’s recognition that technology
needs are constantly ‘‘evolving’’ in light
of ‘‘advances in telecommunications
and information technologies and
services.’’
56. In creating the E-rate program in
1997, in the Universal Service First
Report and Order, 62 FR 32862, June 17,
1997, the Commission designated all
commercially available
telecommunications services as services
eligible for support (or discounts) under
the E-rate program. At the same time,
the Commission determined that it
could provide E-rate support for
additional, non-telecommunications
services, particularly Internet access,
email, and internal connections,
provided by both telecommunications
carriers and non-telecommunications
carriers. The Commission reasoned that
such services enhance access to
advanced telecommunications and
information services for public and nonprofit elementary and secondary school
classrooms and libraries.
57. We update this eligible services
framework for today’s needs. Revisiting
our approach to this issue is consistent
with 254(c)(1)’s definition of universal
service as an ‘‘evolving level’’ of service,
which the Commission must revisit
‘‘periodically,’’ ‘‘taking into account
advances in telecommunications and
information technologies and services.’’
We are also guided by section
254(h)(2)(A)’s directive that we
‘‘enhance, to the extent technically
feasible and economically reasonable,
access to advanced telecommunications
and information services’’ for schools
and libraries.
58. Taken together, and considered in
light of the Commission’s
‘‘responsibility to be a prudent guardian
of the public’s resources,’’ these
provisions lead us to take a more
focused approach to the definition of Erate eligible services today than was
adopted in 1997. In particular, based on
the record of this E-rate modernization
proceeding, and as described in more
detail, we find that E-rate support
should be transitioned to focus
specifically on those
telecommunications and information
services, including associated inside
wiring, necessary to support broadband
to and within schools and libraries. The
Commission has long supported these
types of services, and we think it clear
that the statute authorizes their support.
Section 254(c)(1) and (c)(3) each provide
ample authority for the support of
broadband telecommunications
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
services, and sections 254(c)(3),
(h)(1)(B), and (h)(2) provide authority to
support advanced telecommunications
and information services, including
associated inside wiring.
59. At the same time, in order to focus
E-rate funding on these services, we
must redirect funding away from
services that are less essential to
education, less directly tied to
educational purposes, and/or more
likely to be affordable without E-rate
support than when the program began,
including fixed and mobile voice
service. The statute also amply supports
this decision. Even if the E-rate fund
was not capped at its current level, we
have a responsibility to be prudent
stewards of universal service funds,
knowing that that those funds are
ultimately paid for by consumers.
Because the amount of available E-rate
funding is finite, we must make
thoughtful decisions about what
services are not just permissible to
support, but are the most essential to
support for schools and libraries. We
have relied on the record to inform
these choices.
60. As we focus E-rate support on
high-speed broadband, we recognize
that we will ultimately reach a point
where E-rate no longer supports voice
service, which we have defined as the
254(c)(1) supported service for purposes
of the High Cost (Connect America
Fund) and Lifeline programs. But
nothing in section 254(c)(1) or
elsewhere bars the Commission from
establishing different supported services
for different elements of the overall
Universal Service Fund.
61. Indeed, in establishing the
definition of the telecommunications
services that are supported by the
Federal universal service support
mechanisms, the Commission is charged
with considering the extent to which the
telecommunications services meet the
criteria section 254(c)(1)(A) through (D).
This list of criteria implies that the
definition of supported services can
vary depending on the particular
universal service program at issue. For
example, section 254(c)(1)(A) requires
the Commission, in designating
supported services to consider the
extent to which services ‘‘are essential
to education, public health, or public
safety.’’ Congress recognized that
telecommunications services deemed
essential for education (and by
extension the E-rate program) may well
not be the same as telecommunications
services essential for health (or the
Rural Health Care program). Likewise,
what is consistent with the public
interest, convenience and necessity in
section 254(c)(1)(D) could vary
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49167
depending on the specific universal
service program at issue.
62. Moreover, reading section
254(c)(1) to bar the Commission from
establishing different eligible services
for different universal service programs
would place section 254(c)(1) in tension
with section 254(b), which requires the
Commission to ensure that rates charged
to consumers nationwide are ‘‘just,
reasonable, and affordable,’’ and
therefore to keep universal service
contributions, typically passed through
in customers’ rates, as low as possible.
We think the better reading of 254(c)(1)
provides the Commission authority to
support services in more granular ways,
such as only in the specific USF
programs where the Commission
concludes that such a definition of
supported services is warranted after
considering the (c)(1) factors, and
thereby minimize the overall USF
burden on consumers who pay into the
Fund.
63. Finally, in the sections that follow
we change to some extent the
mechanisms by which E-rate support is
allocated and the discount levels
provided under the program. Sections
254(c) and 254(h) give the Commission
broad authority to design these
mechanisms and set discount rates at
the level ‘‘appropriate and necessary to
ensure affordable access to and use of’’
E-rate supported services. This authority
amply supports the changes we make
here.
B. Providing More Equitable Funding for
Broadband Within Schools and
Libraries
64. In this section, we focus on
providing schools and libraries more
equitable access to funding for Wi-Fi
networks and other internal connections
that allow high-speed connectivity
within schools and libraries. We begin
by designating internal connections that
support broadband connectivity as
‘‘category two’’ services, rather than
‘‘priority two’’ services in recognition of
the importance of Wi-Fi networks in
connecting students and library patrons.
In the short term, in order to provide
schools and libraries more access to
category two funds over the next two
funding years, we accept the
recommendation of commenters who
suggest that we focus the additional
E-rate funds identified by the Bureau
earlier this year on internal connections.
Consistent with this focus, and with the
record in this proceeding on the funding
needs for Wi-Fi and other internal
connections, we also set an annual
budget target of $1 billion for category
two services. Next, we increase the
minimum contribution rate for these
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49168
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
category two services from 10 to 15
percent to encourage applicants to
pursue the most cost-effective options.
For applicants that apply for category
two support during the next two
funding years, we also test reasonable
maximum per-student and per-library
pre-discount budgets for category two
services in order to ensure greater access
to category two funding sufficient to
deploy robust LANs and WLANs.
Finally, we update our rules regarding
eligible services to align with this new
focus on providing E-rate support to
services necessary for broadband
connectivity and direct the Bureau to
update the ESL accordingly.
1. Providing Support for Internal
Connections
65. As an initial matter, we change the
E-rate program’s existing priority
funding nomenclature. We agree with
commenters that schools and libraries
should take a ‘‘whole network’’
approach to planning their purchase of
E-rate eligible services that bring
connectivity both to the building and to
devices. In place of the priority
nomenclature, we designate the services
needed to support broadband
connectivity to schools and libraries as
‘‘category one’’ services, and those
needed for broadband connectivity
within schools and libraries as
‘‘category two’’ services because we
recognize that deploying internal
connections is an important element in
connecting schools and libraries to highspeed broadband.
66. For category one services, we are
confident that the changes we make to
the E-rate program in this Report and
Order will ensure that we can continue
funding all eligible category one
requests, as we continue to evaluate the
long-term, overall program needs. For
category two services, the additional
funding announced by the Bureau
earlier this year will allow the
Commission to make $1 billion
available over each of the next two
years. Building on the use of the
identified program funds for the next
two years, and to give applicants longerterm visibility into our approach, we
also set a funding target of $1 billion
annually for category two services on an
ongoing basis. In contrast to the current
system, providing a target of $1 billion
a year annually for category two services
will ensure greater access to E-rate
support for the Wi-Fi networks needed
to connect 10 million students a year to
21st Century educational tools. We
recognize the concern of some
commenters, however, that, in the
absence of a full review of long-term
program needs, a hard funding
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
allocation for category two services
could put at risk our ability to provide
sufficient support for category one
requests. For that reason, the budget we
adopt will remain a target, rather than
a fixed allocation, as we continue to
evaluate the long-term program needs,
and we direct USAC to shift funds
targeted for category two services to
meet all eligible requests for category
one services, in any funding year in
which demand for category one services
exceeds available funds. Given the
availability of funding for the next two
years, the need for continued analysis of
longer-term trends in category one
demand, as well as savings from the
reforms we adopt today and future
additional reforms, we do not increase
the overall cap at this time, but seek
additional comment on that issue in the
accompanying FNPRM.
67. If demand for internal connections
exceeds the available funding for
category two services, we will prioritize
access to internal connections funding
based on concentrations of poverty.
Those schools and libraries entitled to a
higher discount will receive internal
connections funding ahead of those
entitled to a lower discount rate. If there
is insufficient funding available to meet
the need at a particular discount rate for
category two, we will prioritize funding
within a discount rate based on the
percentage of students that are eligible
for free and reduced school lunches
within each applicant’s school district.
Funding for libraries will be prioritized
based on the percentage of free and
reduced lunch eligible students in the
school district that is used to calculate
the library’s discount rate. Funding for
individual schools that are not affiliated
financially or operationally with a
school district, such as private or
charter schools that apply individually,
will be prioritized based on each
school’s individual free-and-reduced
student lunch eligible population.
68. This prioritization method
maintains the core of the existing
system that E-rate applicants are
familiar with, and gives applicants
serving the highest poverty populations
first access to funds, while allowing us
to fund within a discount-band even
where funding is not sufficient to reach
all schools in that band. As explained,
however, and unlike the existing
system, we adopt additional measures
in an effort to provide the opportunity
for a broader range of applicants to
obtain funding for category two services.
69. In the event that requests for
category one services are less than the
available funding and demand for
category two services is higher than the
$1 billion target for category two
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
services at the close of the funding year
window, the Bureau, working with
OMD and USAC, may redirect the
excess funding to category two services
in the same funding year. If USAC does
not commit the entire category two
budget for a funding year, or committed
funds are not used or returned, such
funds may be carried forward to be used
in subsequent funding years. Each year
such funds are available, we direct the
Bureau, working with OMD and USAC,
to determine the proportion of carryforward funds to be used for category
one and category two services.
2. Increasing the Minimum Applicant
Contribution Rate for Category Two
Services
70. In order to ensure more equitable
access to limited internal connections
funds, we will increase the minimum
contribution applicants must make
towards E-rate supported category two
purchases from 10 to 15 percent. We
agree with commenters that requiring
applicants to pay a larger share of the
cost of E-rate supported category two
purchases will spread available
universal service funds more widely
and increase the incentive for applicants
to find the most cost-effective options
that meet their internal connection
needs.
71. In deciding to reduce the top
discount rate for internal connections
from 90 percent to 85 percent, as with
other changes we are making to the
E-rate program, we remain mindful of
the challenges faced by our most
vulnerable schools and libraries in areas
with the highest levels of poverty.
Taken together, the changes we make in
this Report and Order should benefit all
schools and libraries, including those
receiving the highest discount rate. At
the same time, we have taken a
measured approach in making changes
that could negatively impact applicants
entitled to the highest discount rates.
For example, we reduce the top
discount rate only for category two
services, and only by five percent.
Likewise, we phase down support for
voice services over several years, to give
applicants time to adjust to the loss of
support for such services. We also seek
to counterbalance potential reductions
in funding by adopting proposals aimed
at driving down the prices all applicants
will pay for E-rate supports services,
including increased pricing
transparency and encouraging consortia
purchasing and bulk buying.
72. We expect that requiring higher
matches will lead applicants that have
been eligible for 90 percent discounts
for priority two services to pursue lower
prices for eligible category two services
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
more aggressively. Commenters note
that applicants in the highest discount
level spend more in pre-discount dollars
than those that have a larger required
match. Consistent with this analysis,
E-rate Central, a member of USAC’s
2003 Task Force on Waste, Fraud, and
Abuse, observes ‘‘many examples of
excessive spending by applicants at the
highest discount levels, often driven by
overly aggressive sales efforts by
vendors targeting the poorest schools
and libraries.’’ Thus, as the Iowa
Department of Education argues,
requiring applicants to ‘‘[h]av[e] more
‘skin in the game’ . . . will guard
against waste, fraud, and abuse.’’ We
therefore set the highest discount level
for category two services at 85 percent.
Applicants that would have been
eligible for discounts of 86 to 90 percent
will now be eligible for an 85 percent
discount, and those eligible for a
discount of 85 percent or less will see
no change. This decision is consistent
with a similar change to the Rural
Health Care program that requires
recipients of the new Healthcare
Connect fund to contribute 35 percent of
the costs of the support services, which
the Commission found ‘‘appropriately
balances the objectives of enhancing
access to advanced telecommunications
and information services with ensuring
fiscal responsibility and maximizing the
efficiency of the program.’’
73. Although some commenters
recommend even higher minimum
applicant contribution rates—20, 25 or
even 30 percent (80, 75 or 70 percent
maximum discount rates,
respectively)—we recognize the
concerns voiced by some stakeholders
that we not raise the net cost to the most
disadvantaged schools and libraries
above levels that they can afford.
Therefore, in order to minimize the
impact of this change on these schools
and libraries, we reduce the maximum
discount rate only by five percent and
only for category two services as a first
step. We note that the per-student and
per square foot applicant budgets for
funding year 2015 and 2016 described
below mitigate some of the concerns
about overspending at this time. Other
commenters agree that the discount
level should be changed, but ask for it
to be a temporary change. We see no
reason, however, why the greater
incentives for cost-effective purchasing
introduced by a slightly higher
applicant match would be appropriate
in the near term but less so in the future;
to the contrary, we believe such
incentives will remain important over
time, whereas changing the discount
rate from year-to-year could distort
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
efficient decision making. Finally,
because we are only reducing the
maximum discount rate by five
percentage points, and only for category
two services, we make this change fully
effective for funding year 2015 rather
than phasing it in over multiple years.
3. Setting Applicant Budgets
74. In order to provide broader and
more equitable support for category two
services, we adopt budgets for
applicants who apply for category two
discounts during the next two funding
years, as we continue to evaluate long
term program needs. Under this
approach, schools in districts that seek
category two funding during funding
years 2015 or 2016 will be eligible to
request E-rate discounts on purchases of
up to $150 (pre-discount) per student
for category two services over a five-year
period. Likewise, library systems and
libraries that seek category two funding
in funding years 2015 or 2016 may
request E-rate discounts on purchases of
up to $2.30 (pre-discount) per square
foot over a five-year period. If an
applicant receives funding for category
two services in funding year 2015 or
2016, the five-year budget will apply in
the subsequent five funding years, in
lieu of the existing ‘‘two-in-five’’ rule.
75. We agree with commenters that Erate must maintain its historic focus on
poverty in distributing support.
Therefore, as described, we will
continue to use the discount matrix to
calculate applicants’ E-rate support on
their eligible costs, and applicants that
have a higher percentage of students
eligible for NSLP will continue to
receive a larger proportion of support.
For example, over a five-year period,
schools or districts at the 80 percent
level will be able to request up to $120
in E-rate support per student (an 80
percent discount on $150 in services)
and be required to pay 20 percent of the
cost of eligible category two services
that they purchase. Districts at the 20
percent level will be able to seek up to
$30 per student over a five-year period,
and be required to pay 80 percent of the
costs of the eligible category two
services that they purchase. Similarly, a
library with 10,000 square feet would be
eligible for discounts on purchases of up
to $23,000, so a library at the 80 percent
discount level could request up to
$18,400 in E-rate funding, while a
library at the 20 percent discount level
could request up to $4,600 over a fiveyear period.
76. We recognize that this approach
represents an important change to our
handling of applicant requests, and we
are committed to ensuring that the new
five-year budgets not in any way
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49169
compromise the program’s fundamental
commitments to providing sufficient
support and to permitting local
flexibility to address localized
conditions, even as they expand access
to program funds. Therefore we will
consider funding years 2015 and 2016 to
be a two-year test period, subject to
further review by the Commission.
a. Methodology
77. It would be impossible to identify,
building-by-building, the precise
amount of funding each eligible school
and library will require in a given year
to deploy or upgrade LANs and WLANs
necessary to support broadband services
within their buildings. As commenters
note, building size, construction
characteristics, where applicants are in
their upgrade cycle, and other factors
make each deployment unique. We can,
however, establish a multi-year budget
for category two services that will serve
our goal of ensuring affordable access to
high-speed broadband for schools and
libraries by ensuring that (a) eligible
schools and libraries have greater access
to E-rate funding for internal
connections necessary to distribute
high-speed broadband within their
buildings and (b) that category two
budgets will be sufficient to ensure that
eligible schools and libraries will be
able to afford the deployment or
upgrade of those internal connections.
In setting such a budget, and the related
budget-cycle, to fund internal
connections, we find support from a
broad array of cost data in our record.
78. Budget Cycle. As an initial matter,
for applicants that receive support in
funding years 2015 or 2016, we
establish a five-year budget cycle for
category two services. The record
demonstrates that most category two
equipment has a typical lifecycle of
approximately five years. After that
point, schools and libraries likely will
need additional support to upgrade their
networks. This five-year budget cycle
will give applicants the flexibility to
determine when to make upgrades or
changes.
79. School Budget. We set a prediscount budget of $150 per student
over five years for schools. The record
demonstrates that $2,500 per classroom,
which is equal to just under $150 per
student based on a ratio of 17 students
per classroom, should be a sufficient
budget to deploy LANs/WLANs to
elementary and secondary school
classrooms and common areas across
the nation. States and districts
submitted into our record specific cost
data for recent upgrades to state-of-theart deployments that were largely under
this per-classroom amount. Likewise,
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49170
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
participants at the E-rate Modernization
Workshop described spending differing
amounts per classroom below this
$2,500 range, from $1,300 to an average
of $1,900 per classroom. North Carolina,
which is in the middle of a statewide
upgrade to Wi-Fi in its schools and
libraries, originally estimated the
upgrade cost at $2,200 per classroom,
and has found actual deployment costs
below this initial estimate, ranging from
approximately $2,100 per classroom for
a comprehensive high school upgrade to
$900 per classroom for a more limited
high school upgrade. In some parts of
Mississippi, the $500 cost per classroom
is well below this budget.
80. Based on NCES data for average
class sizes and other sources,
commenters estimate that there are 18 to
20 students per classroom in the United
States, an estimate supported by
consultations with district technology
officials and equipment vendors. Data in
the record from a sample of states and
districts suggests that the true number is
slightly lower, however. In particular,
statewide data from three states
representing almost five million
students (approximately 10 percent of
all students in the country) give an
average of 17.8 students per classroom,
likely because not all classrooms are in
use at all times of the day. Several
individual districts also submitted
classroom counts, both rural and urban,
with an average of 19.6 students per
classroom. Combined, the state and
district data provide information on
schools serving over 5.6 million
students, with an average of 18 students
per classroom. We believe it makes
sense to use a relatively conservative
estimate to ensure support levels are
sufficient for schools with smaller class
sizes, such as smaller rural schools.
Accordingly, in translating the various
per-classroom cost estimates in our
record into per-student costs (and viceversa), we use an estimate of 17 students
per classroom. Dividing $2,500 by 17
gives a per-student budget of $147,
which we round up to $150 for
simplicity of administration.
81. A pre-discount budget of $150 per
student over five funding years, or $30
per student annually, is also consistent
with the market rate for elementary and
secondary school managed Wi-Fi
solutions, described. Because these
costs include installation and
maintenance, we find them to be a
strong, market-driven representation of
all-inclusive, per-student LAN/WLAN
deployment costs. For example,
Education Networks of America (ENA)
currently provides managed Wi-Fi to 82
percent of public and charter high
schools in Idaho for $21 per student and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
teacher per year, including installation,
management, maintenance, and content
filtering. C-Spire Fiber has several
deployments in Mississippi that average
an annual cost of $19 to $29 per student
for the managed Wi-Fi product it is
piloting. In Ohio, several Information
Technology Centers offer a managed WiFi service to member school districts for
$9–15 per student per year plus vendor
installation charges.
82. Commenters also submitted three
different Wi-Fi cost models into our
record: The EdSuperHighway/CoSN
ConnectED Cost Model, the
EdSuperHighway/CoSN Ongoing Cost
Model, and the Cisco Model. The first
of these, the EdSuperHighway/CoSN
ConnectED Cost Model, produces the
lowest estimate of required costs,
producing a nationwide, average cost of
approximately $21 per student per year,
well below the budget we set here. This
model assumes substantial existing
infrastructure however, the extent of
which will vary greatly between
districts, so it is poorly suited to setting
reasonable, nationwide budgets that will
be sustainable on an ongoing basis. We
thus do not rely on this model.
83. The remaining models confirm
our conclusion based on the record
evidence discussed that a pre-discount
$150 per student five-year budget we
adopt here is reasonable. In contrast to
the EdSuperHighway/CoSN ConnectED
Cost Model, the EdSuperHighway/CoSN
Ongoing Cost Model and the Cisco
Model each attempt to estimate the full,
ongoing costs of internal connections
deployments, averaged over the
lifecycle of the equipment used. Both
models consist of two basic
components: An overall framework for
estimating costs and a set of inputs for
various costs and equipment lifecycles.
Although they differ somewhat, the
frameworks of both models appear to
provide generally reasonable
approaches to estimating Wi-Fi
deployment costs. The deployment and
maintenance cost estimates generated by
the EdSuperHighway/CoSN Ongoing
Cost Model and the Cisco Model differ,
with EdSuperHighway/CoSN estimating
an annual average cost of $869 per
classroom, or $44 per student, and Cisco
estimating an annual average of $1,081
per classroom, or $59 per student. The
staff’s sensitivity analysis of the key cost
drivers, however, shows that the range
of reasonable cost estimates that can be
produced by the basic model
frameworks is quite a bit wider than
shown by these two data points.
Specifically, with plausible changes to a
small number of inputs, the models
could support annual cost estimates
ranging from approximately $22 all the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
way to $75 per student. The $150 per
student five-year budget we adopt here
falls comfortably within this range,
albeit toward the lower end. The
EdSuperHighway/CoSN Ongoing Cost
Model and the Cisco Model thus help
confirm the conclusions we draw from
the diverse data on real world
deployment costs and the market-driven
costs of managed Wi-Fi services, and,
based on these data sets, we are
comfortable choosing an estimate
toward the lower end of the range
produced by the models.
84. In sum, the record suggests $150
per student is a reasonable budget, with
many schools able to complete Wi-Fi
deployments or upgrades for less than
that amount. Some schools may still
choose to spend more than $150 per
student on their wireless deployments
based on individual design decisions,
and nothing in the approach we adopt
prevents these decisions. Because the
evidence shows that $150 per student
has proven sufficient in numerous
deployments over several geographic
areas, however, we limit E-rate
discounts to this budget.
85. In finding that $150 per student
over five years should provide sufficient
support for category two services, we
acknowledge that some cost variation
exists across or even within LAN or WiFi networks. For example, different
building construction materials and
variations in labor costs can affect
upgrade costs. However, in contrast to
some other costs, such as the costs of
digging trenches for fiber deployment,
the majority of the costs of LAN and WiFi networks are commodity equipment
costs, and therefore cost variation for
efficient upgrades is far less than that
for connectivity to schools and libraries.
For the same reason, schools’ costs for
LAN or Wi-Fi networks generally
should scale linearly by the number of
classrooms (and therefore the number of
students). We therefore conclude that a
per-student system of setting budgets for
category two funding (combined with a
poverty-based discount rate and subject
to the funding floor, as discussed below)
reasonably suits the manner in which
category two costs are incurred.
86. Library Budget. We set a prediscount budget of $2.30 per square foot
over five years for libraries. Square
footage provides a simple to calculate,
predictable, and reasonably accurate
method of setting budgets. Some
commenters suggest that we should use
patron counts, average daily users, peak
hour users, or other metrics to help set
reasonable internal connections budgets
for libraries. We decline to adopt any of
these other suggested metrics at this
time because (a) we have identified no
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
available sources of data on these
metrics for all libraries, and (b) patron
count, average daily users, and peak
hour users may vary dramatically and
could be difficult to measure. As a
result, using these metrics at this time
could reduce predictability, complicate
the application process, and slow down
application reviews.
87. We choose $2.30 per square foot
over five years as the budget amount
based on three data sets in our record.
First, Vermont libraries submitted state
data showing the average equipment
cost for deploying wireless networks in
35 libraries in the state to be
approximately $0.81 per square foot.
Second, the Urban Libraries Counsel
(ULC) urged the adoption of a budget of
$4 per square foot for libraries, which
was supported by a number of libraries.
Finally, the ALA filed an analysis
reporting per square foot costs for a
variety of libraries in the range of $1.79
to $2.29, which focused more
specifically on E-rate eligible costs.
88. Considering the range of all the
cost data in the record and recognizing
that the $2.30 budget is a cap, not a
grant, we find that ALA’s
recommendation of $2.30 per square
foot, taken with the $9,200 funding floor
over five years as set below, is a
reasonable budget level. The ALA
recommendation is based on a more
thorough analysis and specifically
limited to E-rate eligible costs. While we
note that a number of libraries
supported the ULC proposal, in general,
these commenters did not provide
sufficiently detailed data for the
Commission to ensure that the estimates
included only E-rate eligible services.
Further, four ULC member libraries that
did provide more specific cost data in
response to requests from Commission
staff indicate a range of $0.82 to $3.08
per square foot. Even so, we consider
ULC’s data in evaluating all the cost
data in the record and selecting the
$2.30 per square foot funding budget.
89. Finally, we note that nationwide,
schools have a median of approximately
150–175 square feet per student. The
$150 per-student budget we adopt
therefore equals about $0.86 to $1.00 per
square foot for schools. The budget we
select for libraries today is substantially
above this amount. Therefore, we
believe that $2.30 represents a generous
figure that will not unnecessarily
restrict library funding. Since our record
suggests that usage density is unlikely to
be substantially higher in libraries than
it is in schools, the school costs in our
record provide additional support for
our finding that ALA’s proposed $2.30
per square foot funding budget will
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
provide sufficient support for library
deployments.
90. Notwithstanding this analysis, we
recognize that the library data are less
robust than that for schools.
Accordingly, in the accompanying
FNPRM we seek additional comment on
these issues.
91. Funding Floor. To ensure the
category two budgets we set are
sufficient to meet the minimum demand
that certain schools and libraries might
have regardless of size, we also establish
a pre-discount funding floor of $9,200 in
category two support available for each
school or library. While WLAN costs
tend to scale by classroom size, schools
and libraries will need the baseline
funding to purchase a router and/or
switch, at least one small wireless
access point, and cabling necessary to
deploy WLANs in even the smallest
buildings. Our record is not, however,
as well developed on this point as we
would like, and so we take the
conservative approach of adopting
ALA’s recommended floor of $9,200,
based on ALA’s consultation with its
library members. Our record indicates
that $9,200 should be sufficient to cover
the costs to purchase necessary
equipment, cabling, and installation for
these libraries. We set the floor for
schools at the same level to ensure
equity and because the costs of
deployment in small schools and
libraries should be similar. Increasing
the floor by this amount has a minimal
budget impact. Therefore, all schools
and libraries, including smaller schools
and libraries, will be eligible to request
pre-discounted support for up to at least
$9,200 for category two services over
any given five-year period.
92. Per-Entity Basis. Applicants will
be required to seek support for category
two services on a school-by-school and
library-by-library basis, although school
districts will use a single district-wide
discount rate for all of their schools, as
will library systems for all of their
libraries. Under this approach, school
districts, whether public or made up of
more than one independent school
under central control, will have the
flexibility to request support for any
school or group of its schools each
funding year, using the number of
students in any school getting LAN/
WLAN upgrades to determine the
maximum eligible pre-discount amount
in a given funding year for that school.
This flexibility will allow districts to
decide how to sequence deployment of
LANs/WLANs based on their individual
needs. For example, a large district may
choose to upgrade one fifth of its
schools in each of the five funding
years, while a small district may request
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49171
support to upgrade all of its schools in
one funding year. To the extent that a
district seeks or receives funding
commitments for less than the category
two budget for E-rate support available
to a school, it may request additional
category two E-rate support up to that
budget in the following four funding
years. The costs for services shared by
multiple entities shall be divided
between the entities for which support
is sought in that funding year. Likewise,
library systems that include multiple
libraries will have the flexibility to
request support for all or a portion of
their library branches each year, using
the floor area of the libraries being
updated to determine the maximum
budget available each year.
93. Similarly, eligible schools that
operate independently of a public
school district, such as a private or
charter school, are eligible for E-rate
discounts on the purchase of eligible
internal connections services up to $150
per student (or a minimum of $9,200).
If an independently operated school
seeks or receives less than the maximum
amount of internal connections E-rate
support available to that school in year
one, it may request additional internal
connections E-rate support up to that
maximum in the following four funding
years. Likewise, libraries that are not
part of a library system may request Erate support for a pre-discount purchase
of up to the greater of $9,200 or $2.30
per square foot, and any amount less
than that will be available in the
following four funding years. For
example, a 10,000 square foot library
may request support for a purchase of
up to $23,000 over five years. If it seeks
E-rate support for a purchase of $13,000
in the first funding year, it may request
discounted support for another $10,000
in eligible services over the next four
years.
94. Application of Budgets to Funding
Years 2015 and 2016 and Five-Year
Funding Cycle. The question of
applicant budgets is closely linked to
the question of the long-term funding
levels for category two services. As
described, at this time we set funding
for category two as a budget target rather
than a firm allocation. In light of the
funding identified by the Bureau earlier
this year, we are confident we can meet
this target for the next two funding
years, and therefore we apply the budget
approach adopted here to those two
funding years. We will evaluate the
longer-term application of this approach
in conjunction with our evaluation of
the overall, longer-term program needs.
95. While the budget approach will
only apply to applicants that receive
funding in funding years 2015 and 2016,
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49172
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
we clarify that the budget themselves
are five-year budgets. In other words, for
schools in districts seeking funding in
years 2015 and 2016, we adopt a rolling
funding cycle of five years for category
two services and remove the two-in-five
rule that applied to priority two internal
connections. As explained, Wi-Fi
equipment has a lifecycle of
approximately five years. Therefore,
excluding any priority two support
received before funding year 2015,
schools in districts that seek category
two support in funding years 2015 or
2016 will calculate their available
support budget as $150 per student,
multiplied by their discount, less any Erate support received in the prior four
years. In the first funding year that an
applicant requests category two support,
the full amount of the pre-discount $150
per student budget will be available to
request. In later years, applicants will
calculate the available budget based of
$150 per student less any support
received in the prior four funding years.
Applicants that receive support in
funding year 2015 will have $150 per
student available divided over funding
years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.
Applicants that receive support in
funding year 2016, but not in funding
year 2015, will have a budget of $150
per student divided over funding years
2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. Likewise,
libraries in library systems that receive
support in funding years 2015 or 2016
will calculate support over the five-year
funding cycle using the number of
square feet less any support received in
the prior four funding years. This
approach will allow schools and
libraries to plan for how best to upgrade
their facilities, and plan for future
upgrades based on their own prior
spending. In contrast, adopting a shorter
budget, such as a two-year budget,
would create a mismatch between the
budget cycle and real equipment
lifecycles, and would likely encourage
applicants to inefficiently front-load
expenses in the next two years.
b. Reasons for a Multi-Year Budget
Approach
96. Our decision to limit applicants’
total category two requests based on a
five-year budget reflects broad
consensus in the record that some
reasonable limits on requests are
necessary to spread support more
broadly than under the current system.
In the E-rate Modernization Public
Notice, the Bureau outlined three
options for such limits, and invited
comments on alternatives. The five-year
budget that we adopt here is a middle
course between two of these options—
an annual per-student allocation and a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
one-in-five rotating funding schedule.
After carefully evaluating the arguments
for these and other options, we
conclude that the approach we adopt
today will bring several important
benefits to applicants and the program.
97. First, the approach we take to
distribute category two funding
provides greater predictability. Since
funding year 1999, applicants have had
no certainty from year-to-year that
category two services would be
supported. As such, administrators,
budget managers, and technology
planners have been discouraged from
planning for E-rate support for Wi-Fi in
their schools and libraries because
annual funding was far from assured.
Some commenters express concern
regarding the predictability of other
approaches, such as a rotating approach
or a one-in-five approach. On the other
hand, some commenters support an
allocation approach in order to provide
needed certainty. Unlike in previous
years, when there was no funding for
internal connections, or funding went to
connect a small percentage of the
nation’s students and library patrons,
the approach we adopt today provides
greater predictability and will be able to
provide support for 10 million students
and thousands of libraries each year.
98. Second, the approach we adopt
today maintains the E-rate program’s
priority for the highest poverty schools
and libraries. We continue to use
poverty measures when distributing
support under this approach.
Applicants with the highest percentage
of students eligible for free and reduced
lunch will receive a greater proportion
of E-rate support and be eligible earlier
in the five-year cycle if demand exceeds
the annual budget for category two
services.
99. At the same time, this approach
guarantees a broader distribution of
funding for internal connections—
adjusted as appropriate to reflect
greatest levels of poverty—by setting
reasonable limits on category two
requests in order to deploy Wi-Fi
networks to a far greater number of
eligible applicants. Many applicants
debate the costs and benefits of different
distribution approaches, but focus on a
core principle that distribution must be
made more equitable. As we noted
earlier, the existing priority two
methodology has resulted in E-rate
funding for priority two services being
distributed only to schools and libraries
with the highest discount levels.
Additionally, a disproportionate amount
of available funding has gone to urban
schools. Commenters point out that
some proposals, like a one-in-five
limitation, would not help to achieve a
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
more equitable distribution of support.
Similarly, an increase in the cap
without these additional measures to
encourage efficient purchasing would
not achieve more equitable distribution.
This five-year budget approach should
provide sufficient support per student
or per square foot for far more schools
and libraries to access needed funding,
but places a limit on less cost-efficient
spending requests.
100. Importantly, this approach to
funding category two connectivity also
provides flexibility to districts, schools,
and libraries to deploy and maintain
Wi-Fi as best suits their own
circumstances. Many commenters argue
that flexibility is essential for setting
reasonable budgets each year, and this
five-year budget approach allows
applicants to decide the rate at which
school networks are updated. This
approach allows applicants to plan how
to deploy their networks over five years,
whether by requesting support for all or
just a portion of entities each year, or by
purchasing a managed Wi-Fi service
through which a third party provider
installs and manages the necessary LAN
and WLAN.
101. Finally, the approach we take
today promotes cost-effective
purchasing by applicants while
providing support that the record
demonstrates should be sufficient to
support these badly needed
deployments. In the past, applicants at
the top discount levels had an incentive
to overbuy or use less cost-effective
network design. A limit on category two
support will encourage more costefficient purchasing.
102. In contrast to the approach we
adopt here, we find the alternative
approaches that commenters suggest as
well as those outlined by the Bureau in
the E-rate Modernization Public
Notice—such as maintaining the
existing system but temporarily
eliminating support for applicants that
have recently received support, a
rotating schedule of funding for
different discount bands, or single-year
budgets, implemented with or without
the existing discount matrix—would
each be less effective at solving the
structural problems with how the E-rate
program has historically funded internal
connections. For instance, as pointed
out by commenters, both the rotating
eligibility approach and the one-in-five
approach outlined by the Bureau in the
E-rate Modernization Public Notice lack
certainty for schools and libraries absent
incentives for more cost-efficient
purchasing in the highest discount
bands, and would likely fail to
distribute support more broadly than is
the case today. In contrast, providing
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
applicants with a constant, single-year
budget would fail to account for the
reality that individual applicants will
have different needs in different years,
depending on where they are in their
upgrade cycle.
c. Other Applicant Budget Issues
103. Student Count. We move to a
district-wide calculation of applicants’
discount rates. In order to determine the
budget available each funding year,
districts should calculate the number of
students per school at the time that they
calculate their district-wide discount
rate annually. We recognize that there
will be some instances, such as the
construction of a new school, that will
make calculating the number of students
more difficult for districts. We will
permit schools and school districts to
provide a reasonable estimate of the
number of students who will be
attending a school under construction
during a particular funding year and
seek support for the estimated number
of students. However, if an applicant
overestimates the number of students
who enroll in that school, it must return
to USAC by the end of the next funding
year any funding in excess of that to
which it was entitled based on the
actual number of enrolled students. This
means a school at the 80 percent
discount level, which estimates that it
will have 1,000 students, may request Erate support of up to $120,000. If,
however, enrollment after the school
opens is only 750 students, the school
will have to return any committed
support exceeding $90,000. We note,
however, that there may be funding
years in which an entity loses students
and therefore spent more than its
available budget in the prior four
funding years. In these instances, we
will not require repayment of any E-rate
support, but there will be no available
funding for that funding year. Students
who attend multiple schools, such as
those that attend educational service
agencies (ESAs) part-time, may be
counted by both schools in order to
ensure appropriate LAN/WLAN
deployment for both buildings.
104. Cost-Effective Purchasing. Our
goal in setting a per-student limit is to
ensure schools and libraries can
purchase the internal connections they
need while discouraging them from
purchasing unnecessary equipment or
using an inefficient network design. At
the same time, we emphasize that the
pre-discount $150 budget per student is
not a block grant. Applicants may only
request funding for discounts on eligible
category two services, and schools must
continue to pay the non-discounted
portion of the supported services. These
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
requirements remain in place. We will
not, however, second guess schools’ and
libraries’ decisions to purchase
additional equipment or services with
other sources of funding if they
determine that it is the most costeffective service offering for what they
have decided they need.
105. Rural Remote Applicants. We
decline to adopt the request made by
some commenters that we provide
additional category two funding or a
rebuttable presumption allowing USAC
or the Bureau to waive the budget for
applicants in rural remote areas at this
time. As described, we find that LAN/
WLAN costs are largely based on the
costs of equipment, and therefore tend
to have consistent prices nationwide. To
the extent there are price variations, it
is often the case that internal
connections upgrades are less expensive
in rural areas because labor costs are
lower, permitting is easier, and
buildings are newer and/or easier to
renovate. Therefore, we conclude that
the benefits of additional funding for
rural remote areas are outweighed by
the added administrative burden and
the additional costs to the Fund of
providing such additional support.
4. Setting an Annual Funding Target for
Internal Connections
106. Based on the five-year school and
library budgets we find sufficient above,
total category two pre-discount requests
over the next five-years will amount to
no more than $8.8 billion to deploy
LANs and WLANs in schools and
libraries throughout the country. After
accounting for the non-discounted share
paid by applicants, with a 15 percent
minimum applicant contribution, we
estimate that E-rate discounts will
support approximately 67 percent of the
total pre-discount cost of $8.8 billion for
eligible category two services. In
addition, we estimate that there will be
schools and libraries that do not seek
funding or request less than the full
budgeted amount to upgrade and
maintain their LANs/WLANs over time.
We therefore reduce the five-year budget
by approximately 15 percent to avoid
over-budgeting and set the five-year
budget at $5 billion, plus annual
inflation adjustments. We adopt an
annual target of $1 billion, plus any
annual inflationary changes, for
category two services, which is equal to
one-fifth of the five-year estimate of Erate support. In addition to this annual
budget, the Bureau may allocate any
available carry forward funding to meet
category two demand.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49173
5. Focusing Support on Broadband
a. Core Components of Broadband
Internal Connections
107. In order to help deploy LANs/
WLANs necessary to permit digital
learning in schools and libraries
throughout the nation, we focus the
category two ESL on broadband. With
one narrow exception, we limit internal
connections support to those broadband
distribution services and equipment
needed to deliver broadband to students
and library patrons: Routers, switches,
wireless access points, internal cabling,
racks, wireless controller systems,
firewall services, uninterruptable power
supply, and the software supporting
each of these components used to
distribute high-speed broadband
throughout school buildings and
libraries. Some form of each of these
services has previously been designated
as eligible for E-rate support, and we
find they are necessary to ensure
delivery of high-speed broadband
services to students and library patrons
via LANs/WLANs. We do not limit
these eligible services by form, and
therefore agree that equipment that
combines functionality, like routing and
switching, is also eligible. Similarly, we
recognize that some functionalities can
be virtualized in the cloud, such as
cloud wireless controllers, and therefore
will permit such services to be eligible
for purchase by schools and libraries.
108. To focus support on only those
internal connections necessary to enable
high-speed broadband connectivity,
beginning in funding year 2015, we
eliminate E-rate support for the priority
two components that had been in the
following ESL entries: Circuit Cards/
Components; Interfaces, Gateways,
Antennas; Servers; Software; Storage
Devices; Telephone Components, Video
Components, as well as voice over IP or
video over IP components, and the
components, such as virtual private
networks, that are listed under Data
Protection other than firewalls and
uninterruptible power supply/battery
backup. In recognition of our need to be
a ‘‘prudent guardian of the public’s
resources,’’ we find that eliminating
these priority two components from the
ESL ensures that there is more E-rate
support available to deploy the LANs/
WLANs needed to improve digital
learning in schools and libraries. It is
also consistent with section 254(h)(2)(A)
of the Act, which requires that support
to schools and libraries improve access
to advanced services in a manner that is
‘‘technically feasible’’ and
‘‘economically reasonable.’’ We direct
the Bureau to release for comment a
draft ESL for funding year 2015
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49174
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
consistent with this Report and Order,
and encourage applicants to carefully
review the eligible components
included in the modernized category
two section in that draft ESL. Some
components that had been listed in the
ESL as priority two may be relocated or
described in updated or more generic
terminology.
109. Also, despite support from some
commenters, we decline at this time to
designate further network security
services and other proposed services in
order to ensure internal connections
support is targeted efficiently at the
equipment that is necessary for LANs/
WLANs. Many commenters agreed that
a limited list of eligible services would
help ensure available funds are targeted
and therefore available to more
applicants. As we noted, we leave the
record open on these services to allow
for further comment as we evaluate the
changes in the first funding year.
b. Basic Maintenance, Managed Wi-Fi,
and Caching
110. Basic Maintenance. For funding
years 2015 and 2016, we will continue
to provide support for basic
maintenance services subject to each
school or library’s overall budget on Erate eligible category two services. In the
E-rate Modernization NPRM, the
Commission proposed phasing out
support for basic maintenance because
the same high-discount school districts
received ample funding, while most
school districts received none.
Commenters point out however, that
basic maintenance is needed to ensure
networks operate properly, particularly
as networks become more complicated.
We believe that we can achieve the
stated goal of broader funding
distribution through other means,
including a reasonable and equitable
limit on the total amount of E-rate
support available per student and per
square foot which will discipline
districts and libraries in basic
maintenance purchasing decisions. In
particular, applicants are unlikely to
seek support for unnecessary basic
maintenance given these limits on the
total amount available, but providing
support to ensure these networks
function effectively may aid those
districts with limited resources. Support
will only be available for maintenance
on equipment and services on the ESL
and not for any of the legacy services
phased out in this Report and Order.
111. Managed Wi-Fi. In light of the
applicant budgets for funding years
2015 and 2016, we are persuaded by
commenters who argue that managed
Wi-Fi, which we call managed internal
broadband services in the rules to cover
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
the operation, management, or
monitoring of a LAN or WLAN, should
be eligible for internal connections
support. In the past, applicants could
seek internal connections support only
for the purchase of internal connections
and basic maintenance. Unlike the
traditional approach to internal
connections, for managed Wi-Fi service
contracts, schools and libraries obtain
LANs/WLANs as a service for a period
of three to five years from a third party
who manages the entire system,
providing operations and maintenance
for the life of the contract. In other
cases, the school or library may own the
equipment, but have a third party
manage it for them.
112. The record demonstrates that
applicants would benefit from greater
flexibility to choose among managed
Wi-Fi options. In particular, the
variations of managed Wi-Fi services
can provide substantial benefits and
cost savings to many schools and
libraries, particularly small districts and
libraries without a dedicated technology
director available to deploy and manage
advanced LANs/WLANs quickly and
efficiently. Therefore, pursuant to our
authority under section 254 of the Act,
we find that providing support for
managed internal broadband services,
including managed Wi-Fi, will
‘‘enhance . . . access to advanced
telecommunications and information
services’’ for schools and libraries, and
we direct the Bureau to include
managed internal broadband services on
the ESL for funding years 2015 and
2016.
113. Under the five-year applicant
budget approach we adopt, a district,
school, or library will be able to seek
annual support for a managed Wi-Fi
service, up to an average pre-discount
rate cost of $30 per student per year or
one-fifth of the budget available to
libraries based on floor area. This is
consistent with the price of managed
Wi-Fi services in the market today and
limits the likelihood of waste or abuse
in these managed Wi-Fi contracts. As
noted below, we will allow districts and
libraries to sign multi-year contracts, but
we will not make multi-year
commitments. Our short-term budget
will be sufficient to fund these smaller
multi-year contracts and we will
continue to evaluate whether additional
changes are needed in the long-term, but
emphasize that there is no guarantee of
funding.
114. We disagree with commenters
who argue that managed Wi-Fi should
be a category one service. Despite our
recognition that virtualization and
management may send some amount of
information beyond the walls of the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
school or library building in order to
manage the internal networks, we find
that services used to distribute
bandwidth throughout the school are
internal connections services. We
therefore remove the presumption in
our rules that such a service is not an
internal connection.
115. Competitive bidding rules still
apply to procurement of managed Wi-Fi
services. We encourage districts to
request bids in technologically neutral
ways and compare the cost-effectiveness
of bids for self-provisioned networks
with those for managed Wi-Fi contracts.
We also encourage schools and libraries
considering managed Wi-Fi to evaluate
the value of joining a consortium of
schools and libraries to increase their
buying power and drive down costs.
116. We also clarify that E-rate
support for managed Wi-Fi is limited to
those expenses or portions of expenses
that directly support and are necessary
for the broadband connectivity within
schools and libraries. Eligible managed
Wi-Fi expenses include the management
and operation of the LAN/WLAN,
including installation, activation, and
initial configuration of eligible
components, and on-site training on the
use of eligible equipment. Eligible
managed Wi-Fi expenses do not include
a managed voice service, for example.
For bundled pricing that includes
eligible and ineligible expenses,
applicants are required to cost allocate
eligible from ineligible services to
ensure only eligible services are
supported.
117. Finally, we delegate to the
Bureau the authority to determine how
best to interpret managed services for
the purposes of the ESL as we gain
experience with funding of these
services through the E-rate program.
Wireless access as a managed service is
a market that is still being developed,
and we believe it will facilitate the
efficient and effective support of these
services to provide the Bureau
flexibility to adjust our approach as this
market develops. As always, parties may
appeal any Bureau decision to the full
Commission.
118. Caching. Due in part to the
applicant budgets for funding years
2015 and 2016 limiting waste or abuse,
we agree with commenters who argue
that caching functionality should be
eligible for internal connections
support. Caching functionality enables
the local storage of information so that
the information is accessible more
quickly than if it is transmitted across
a network from a distant server. By
placing previously requested
information in temporary storage,
caching functionality can, in certain
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
circumstances, optimize network
performance, and potentially result in
more efficient use of E-rate funding. The
record indicates that caching
functionality can be an integral
component of some LANs and WLANs.
As commenters point out, caching can
provide a more affordable way to
achieve bandwidth goals. This is
consistent with the goal we adopt in this
Report and Order, as well as the
Commission’s authority to ensure
affordable access to E-rate supported
services. As such, we disagree with
commenters who argue that caching
functionality should not be supported
by E-rate funds. Instead, we designate
caching functionality as an eligible
service that ‘‘enhance(s), to the extent
technically feasible and economically
reasonable, access to advanced
telecommunications and information
services’’ for schools and libraries. As
with the core components of broadband
internal connections, we agree that
equipment that combines caching
functionality with other functionalities
is also eligible. However, equipment
that combines caching functionality
with an ineligible functionality must be
cost allocated. We therefore delegate to
the Bureau the authority to define
caching functionality, as well as the
necessary software or equipment, such
as caching servers, for the purposes of
the funding years 2015 and 2016
Eligible Services List. As always, parties
may appeal any Bureau decision to the
full Commission.
119. Eligibility After Funding Years
2015 and 2016. We make these
determinations about eligibility in light
of the applicant budgets we set out that
mitigate some of our concerns about
waste or abuse. We therefore direct the
Bureau to include basic maintenance,
managed internal broadband services,
and caching functionality on the ESL for
funding years 2015 and 2016. The
Commission will evaluate the benefits
and drawbacks of these eligibility
determinations in future funding years
as it continues its work modernizing the
program. Absent Commission action, in
funding year 2017 and in subsequent
funding years, support for basic
maintenance, managed internal
broadband services, and caching
functionality, as an internal connection,
will be available only to those
applicants that received support in
funding years 2015 and 2016 and are
operating under a five-year applicant
budget.
6. Other Issues
120. Category Two Installation Can
Begin on April 1. We also amend our
rules for category two non-recurring
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
services to permit applicants to seek
support for category two eligible
services purchased on or after April 1,
three months prior to the start of
funding year on July 1. This will
provide schools with the flexibility to
purchase equipment in preparation for
the summer recess and provide the
maximum amount of time during the
summer to install these critical
networks. We agree with commenters
who note that the last day of school is
often in May or June and schools need
to be able to use the entire summer
recess to ensure the networks are ready
when students return to school. This is
consistent with our previous decision to
allow advance installation and
construction under certain conditions.
121. Administration. In accordance
with this section, we make necessary
changes to §§ 54.500, 54.502, 54.505,
and 54.507 of our rules. We recognize
that these represent major changes to
the structure and distribution of support
for internal connections. Because
unanticipated technical or operational
issues may arise that require prompt
action, we reaffirm the delegation of
authority to the Bureau to interpret our
rules ‘‘as necessary to ensure that
support for services provided to schools
and libraries . . . operate to further our
universal service goals.’’
C. Phasing Down and Ending Support
for Legacy and Other Non-Broadband
Services
122. In funding year 2013,
approximately 50 percent of priority one
E-rate funding was committed to highspeed broadband services, while
approximately one third went to fixed
voice and mobile services. Phasing
down support for voice services and
eliminating support for certain legacy
services will allow us to focus E-rate
program funding on the high-speed
broadband needed by schools to enable
digital learning and by all libraries to
meet the broadband needs of their
patrons. After the first two years of the
phase down, the Bureau will issue a
report evaluating the impact of the
reduction in support for voice services.
If the Commission takes no further
action, the voice services phase down
will continue.
1. Phasing Down Support for Voice
Services
123. Many commenters support
reducing E-rate support for voice
services to focus the E-rate program on
broadband. We agree that voice services,
while important for schools and
libraries, are not as essential as highspeed broadband is for meeting the
educational needs of students and
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49175
library patrons. Instead of immediately
eliminating support for voice services,
we will reduce voice support each
funding year by subtracting the discount
rate applicants receive for voice services
by 20 percentage points every funding
year. In funding year 2015, the
discounts applicants receive for voice
services will be reduced by 20
percentage points from their discount
rates for other eligible services, and in
funding year 2016, the discounts
applicants receive for voice services will
be 40 percentage points lower than their
discount rates for other eligible services.
In each subsequent funding year, the
discounts applicants receive for voice
services will be reduced by an
additional 20 percentage points. Over
the first two years of the phase down for
voice services support, we direct the
Bureau to evaluate the impact of the
phase down on eligible schools and
libraries and study the transition of
eligible schools and libraries to VoIP
services and issue a report to the
Commission as we continue to reduce
voice support by 20 percentage points
each year. If, by the opening of the
funding year window for funding year
2018, the Commission takes no further
action, the voice phase down will
continue.
124. Voice services have been eligible
for E-rate program funding since the
Commission determined that the E-rate
program should support all
commercially available
telecommunications services in the
Universal Service First Report and
Order. When the Commission
established the E-rate program in 1997,
the goal was to provide schools and
libraries discounts on the broadest class
of telecommunications services and
advanced services available at that time,
and to provide schools and libraries the
flexibility to purchase new technologies
as they became available. However, the
options for Internet access then were
generally limited to dial up modem
services offered over POTS lines, and
the data links provided by T–1 and T–
3 lines.
125. Today, a much broader array of
high-speed broadband services are
available to and needed by schools and
libraries to support modern digital
learning initiatives. Moreover, support
for voice services today consumes
approximately one third of E-rate
commitments while many schools and
libraries are unable to access the
funding they need for internal
connections to provide high-speed
broadband throughout schools and
libraries. In order to meet our goal of
funding high-speed broadband services
to support digital learning in schools
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49176
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and robust connectivity for all libraries,
we conclude that we can no longer
continue to fund voice services at the
same discounts rates as applied to other
eligible services that provide broadband
access. Instead, we will gradually
reduce E-rate funding for voice services
and shift these funds to support those
services that provide high-speed
broadband. Accordingly, we remove the
reference to E-rate supporting ‘‘all
commercially available
telecommunications services’’ in
§ 54.502(a) of our rules so that it is clear
to applicants that the
telecommunications services that are
supported by E-rate are listed in the
ESL, rather than potentially sending a
confusing message that any
telecommunications service available on
the market is eligible for E-rate
discounts. This is important now that
we are phasing down support for voice
services and eliminating support for
some of the services associated with
telephone service as explained herein.
We also add to the rules our schedule
for phasing down support for voice
services.
126. We recognize that many schools
and libraries consider E-rate support for
voice services an important part of their
overall budgets. However, several
factors should help ameliorate the
impacts of gradually phasing down
support for these services. First, voice is
now a competitive offering in many
areas, and the availability of VoIP
services, particularly for those with
broadband, provides a cost-effective
option for many schools and libraries.
This expansion of competition,
particularly from VoIP offerings,
represents a substantial shift since the
E-rate program was created in 1997.
Whereas changes in the voice market are
reducing the costs of voice service over
time, the shortage of funding for
broadband services has increasingly
become an impediment to balancing all
of the Commission’s requirements under
section 254(h). Second, because we will
initially reduce the maximum discount
available for voice services to 70 percent
in 2015, and 50 percent in 2016, our
approach strikes a balance between
those commenters supporting
elimination of discounts for voice
services with those school and library
commenters that stressed the
importance of retaining some level of
support over a defined period of time.
Third, as a result of the other measures
we take in this Report and Order, the
applicants affected by this change will
have opportunities to seek funding for
broadband infrastructure that may not
have been available to them previously.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
To some degree, this may offset changes
in their overall budgets. Finally, our
decision does not alter the
Commission’s requirement that
providers of eligible services must
provide supported services at a lowest
corresponding price (LCP). While voice
service remains a supported service, the
Commission’s LCP rule serves as a
safeguard for affordability because
service providers cannot submit bids for
or charge E-rate applicants a price above
the LCP for E-rate services; E-rate
discounts are then applied to a service
provider’s LCP.
127. Several stakeholders suggest that
in lieu of gradual transition, we give
schools one or two years more of full
support for voice service, but then
eliminate support for voice altogether in
funding years 2016 or 2017. While that
approach might benefit recipients
seeking voice support for the next one
or two funding years, it would eliminate
funding for voice services altogether
before the Commission has had a chance
to study the impact of the gradual phase
down of support for voice services on
eligible schools and libraries. The
approach we take today is more gradual
while allowing us to begin redirecting Erate funding to broadband next year. We
agree that our revised interpretation of
section 254 requires us to redefine
eligible services and shift support away
from voice services and towards
broadband services, but eliminating
support in 2016 or 2017 would cause a
more abrupt change in schools and
library budgets in those funding years,
which we believe many applicants
would find difficult to absorb—
particularly those serving the highest
poverty communities. Phasing down
support for voice services over several
funding years preserves some funding
for applicants at least for the next
several funding years, with the most
economically disadvantaged schools
and libraries receiving the highest
discounts as they consider alternatives
in the marketplace.
128. In the E-rate Modernization
Public Notice, the Bureau sought
comment on phasing out support for
voice services by 15 percentage points
per funding year. We now conclude that
a per-year reduction of 20 percentage
points is appropriate because we find a
more straightforward percentage point
decrease should be easier for applicants
to calculate, and will help ensure that
sufficient funding for is available for
supported services. Beginning in
funding year 2015, when the maximum
discount rate for category one services
will be 90 percent, eligible applicants
shall receive a maximum discount rate
of 70 percent for voice services. We
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
disagree with those commenters who
argue that reductions will be difficult
for applicants to understand and for
USAC to administer. The discount rate
for voice services will be based on an
applicant’s already established discount
rate and will require only a simple 20
percentage point subtraction from the
discount rate any applicant would
otherwise be required to calculate to
receive support from the program. We
change the FCC Form 471 to enable
applicants to seek support for voice
services using a separate funding
request number (FRN) from other
eligible services starting in funding year
2015. Combining voice and non-voice
services in a single FRN would cause
delays in processing if USAC had to
separate out the services during the
application review process.
129. The reduced discount rates for
voice services will apply to all
applicants and all costs incurred for the
provision of telephone services and
circuit capacity dedicated to providing
voice services including: Local phone
service, long distance service, plain old
telephone service (POTS), radio loop,
800 service, satellite telephone, shared
telephone service, Centrex, wireless
telephone service such as cellular, and
interconnected VoIP. Although there
was some support in the record for
excluding VoIP from the voice services
phase down, we agree with those
commenters that assert that retaining a
higher level of funding for VoIP services
while reducing the discount rate only
for non-IP voice services would provide
VoIP providers a competitive advantage
in serving schools and libraries. Because
the marginal cost of delivering VoIP
services should be lower once schools
and libraries have robust broadband, we
expect the price of these services to
continue to drop over the coming years,
alleviating the need to retain higher
discounts for VoIP funding. Similarly, a
few commenters argue that we should
retain support for wireless telephone
services, while others support
eliminating wireless telephone services
in funding year 2015. As with VoIP
services, eliminating support for
wireless telephone service in 2015, or
subjecting wireless telephone services to
a separate phase out track, would
provide non-wireless providers a
competitive advantage over wireless
providers in serving schools and
libraries.
130. Some commenters argue that,
because the USF/ICC Transformation
Order, 76 FR 76623, December 8, 2011,
included voice telephony service in the
definition of universal service, we are
compelled to include voice telephony as
an eligible service for E-rate support
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
under sections 254(c)(3) and
254(h)(1)(B) of the Act. However, as
explained, nothing in section 254(c)(1)
bars the Commission from establishing
different supported services for different
elements of the overall Universal
Service Fund, and in this Report and
Order, consistent with the purpose of
the E-rate program, we find that it is
necessary and appropriate to phase
down voice services.
131. During the initial two years of
the phase down of support for voice
services, we direct the Bureau to study
the impact of these discount reductions
for voice support on E-rate recipients
and to study the transition of eligible
schools and libraries to VoIP services.
The Bureau shall report its findings to
the Commission by October 1, 2017,
after completion of funding year 2016.
If, at the conclusion of this study, no
further action is pursued by the
Commission before the application
filing window opens for funding year
2018, the phase down will continue.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2. Eliminating Support for Telephone
Features, Outdated Services, and NonBroadband Services That Do Not
Facilitate High-Speed Broadband
132. Pursuant to sections 254(c)(1),
(c)(3), (h)(1)(B), and (h)(2) of the Act, we
eliminate support for other legacy and
non-broadband services effective for
funding year 2015. Our decision to stop
supporting these services reverses prior
Commission and USAC decisions,
however, we find many of these services
to be important, but not essential to
education, and E-rate funding is not
sufficient to support these services at
the risk of not being able to fund the
services identified herein that advance
our program goals. Within the
Commission’s authority under section
254 of the Communications Act to
designate telecommunications and
additional services rests our equal
authority to withdraw services from
eligibility, especially as the needs of
schools and libraries evolve. The record
supports our decision.
133. Beginning in funding year 2015,
we will no longer provide E-rate support
for components of telephone service,
outdated services such as paging and
directory assistance, and services that
may use broadband but do not provide
it, including email, voice mail, and web
hosting. Applicants may continue to
seek support for individual data plans
and air cards, but only when they can
demonstrate, consistent with our
current rules, that the purchase of such
services is the most cost-effective way to
connect students on school premises or
library locations to the Internet.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
a. Telephone Features and Outdated
Telephone Services
134. The record supports eliminating
E-rate support for paging, and telephone
service components such as text
messaging and directory assistance
beginning in funding year 2015. There
is widespread agreement among
commenters that paging service is
largely outdated and can be retired from
funding. Similarly, there is agreement
that the features listed as ‘‘Telephone
Service Components’’ should no longer
receive E-rate support. The Telephone
Service Components to be removed from
the ESL are directory assistance charges,
text messaging, custom calling services,
direct inward dialing, 900/976 call
blocking, and inside wire maintenance
plans.
135. Although a few commenters
argue that paging serves an educational
purpose because sometimes it is the
only way to reach a key staff member in
an emergency, other commenters
asserted that paging is not really critical,
and has been replaced by other services.
Similarly, a few commenters argue that
we should continue to support text
messaging because students prefer it for
quick communication, and it is used for
a variety of work related tasks for
administrators and teachers in way that
does not disrupt the classroom. These
are all valid assertions and while we
recognize that these services are worthy
to certain applicants, we conclude that
continuing to fund them diverts funding
away from the high-speed broadband
services that have become essential to
schools and libraries.
136. Notably, those commenters
recommending a longer adjustment
period for the phase down of funding
for voice services did not request a
commensurate phase down timeline for
telephone components, or assert that a
transition period would be critical for
schools and libraries. This is consistent
with our view that a protracted phase
out for telephone components is not
necessary, and that these services
should be eliminated from the list of
those that are eligible for E-rate support
beginning in funding year 2015.
Funding commitment data is not
available for several of the telephone
features we will eliminate, however,
funding year 2012 commitments totaled
approximately $898,045.00 for paging
and text messaging. Some commenters
point out that removing these services
will not result in sizable cost savings for
the Fund. However, we agree with other
commenters who argue that we should
eliminate support for these features and
services because it will allow us to
direct some additional funds towards
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49177
meeting our high-speed connectivity
targets without imposing undue
hardship on applicants.
137. We recognize that removing
telephone components from the ESL in
funding year 2015 will require some
providers to change their billing
practices or require some applicants to
cost allocate the cost of those services
from their requests for support.
However, because these services are
typically provided as an add-on or
enhanced services for an extra fee, they
are often presented as separate line
items on telephone bills. Accordingly, it
should not be overly burdensome for
applicants to seek funding for the voice
component of the telephone service
only, and provide a cost allocation for
any telephone features we remove from
the ESL. Under the Commission’s rules,
if a product or service contains
ineligible components, costs should be
allocated to the extent that a clear
delineation can be made between the
eligible and ineligible components. The
clear delineation must have a tangible
basis and the price for the eligible
portion must be the most cost-effective
means of receiving the eligible service.
For telephone feature costs that are
bundled with the cost of voice services,
one way to determine the cost of the
feature is for an applicant to seek an
appropriate cost allocation from its
service provider. We find that the
benefits of streamlining support for
voice services by removing funding for
these services to enable that support to
be used for essential educational
purposes outweigh any burdens
applicants may face in the next few
funding years as they adjust to these
changes, which the record leads us to
predict generally should be minimal.
b. Email, Web Hosting, Voicemail
138. We eliminate E-rate support for
email, web hosting, and voicemail
beginning in funding year 2015 and
delete the reference to ‘‘electronic mail
services.’’ As many commenters
recognize, these services are
applications delivered over broadband
service, and do not themselves deliver
high-speed broadband. There is also
evidence in the record that applicants
seeking E-rate support for these services
may not be getting the most costeffective solutions, and that some
service providers package web hosting
and email service offerings to E-rate
customers in a way that has created a
risk that E-rate funds will pay for
ineligible services. We recognize that
email, web hosting and voicemail
services may be important services for
the day-to-day operations of many
schools and libraries and that some of
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49178
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
them have come to rely on E-rate
support for those services. However,
continuing to fund these services diverts
E-rate funding away from essential highspeed broadband services. Therefore,
removing E-rate support for email, web
hosting, and voicemail services aligns
with our restructuring of the E-rate
program under section 254.
c. Data Plans and Air Cards for Mobile
Devices
139. Data plans and air cards for
mobile devices will continue to be
eligible for E-rate support only in
instances when the school or library
seeking support demonstrates that
individual data plans are the most costeffective option for providing internal
broadband access for portable mobile
devices at schools and libraries. We
agree with commenters that it is
generally not cost effective for
applicants to purchase on-campus use
individual data plans that provide
service on a one plan per-device basis
when a school or library has robust
internal wireless networks that provide
Internet connectivity to multiple
devices within a school or library. Some
commenters also contend that these
individual data plan services generally
do not provide users with enough highspeed connectivity to access certain
educational and informational
materials.
140. Some schools and libraries
already have wireless networks that
support one-to-one device initiatives.
Moreover, with the increased
availability of E-rate funds as a result of
our decisions in this Report and Order,
many more will be able to install highspeed internal broadband networks to
support one-to-one learning programs in
schools and reliable public Internet
access in libraries. We consider funding
for individual data plans or air cards for
individual users to be not cost effective
when those users can already access the
Internet through internal wireless
broadband networks on wirelessenabled devices without the help of
stand-alone data plans or air cards. In
general (i.e., assuming no showing of
cost effectiveness), for applicants that
receive data plans bundled with voice,
only the voice services in the plan will
remain eligible for funding in
accordance with the phase down
reductions we implement; the applicant
must remove from its funding request
the costs associated with all other
services in a bundled plan that are
ineligible.
141. We recognize that there are a few
locales where WLANs are impracticable
or difficult to install, such as library
bookmobiles. There may also be some
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
schools or libraries where installation of
a wireless network is possible but
would be more costly than using
individual data plans because the
school or library location serves a very
small number of students or patrons.
Therefore, we will allow applicants to
seek funding for individual data plans
where the applicant is able to
demonstrate that individual data plans
are the most cost-effective option for
providing internal broadband access for
mobile devices. In order to ensure that
individual data plans are the most costeffective option, applicants that seek
funding for individual data plans must
be able to demonstrate either that
installing a WLAN is not physically
possible, or must provide a comparison
of the costs to implement an individual
data plan solution versus a wireless
local area network solution. The cost
comparison may be established through
the competitive bidding process by
seeking and comparing bids on both
internal wireless networks and
individual data plans. Applicants
should be prepared to demonstrate to
the Commission and USAC that
individual data plans are the most costeffective option for their situation by
submitting the cost comparison
information upon request.
3. Impact on Multiyear Contracts
142. In response to commenters
asking that we permit funding for
phased-out services until multi-year
contracts expire for those services, we
decline to provide exceptions or allow
‘‘grandfathering’’ for multi-year
contracts. This decision will simplify
the elimination of funding for these
components and services for applicants
and for USAC, and is consistent with
our need to transition funding in the
program to high-speed broadband
without undue delay. Although the
Commission permits applicants to enter
into multi-year contracts for eligible
services, the Commission has never
adopted a rule insulating applicants and
service providers from changes in
program rules simply because a multiyear contract was utilized.
IV. Maximizing the Cost-Effectiveness
of Spending for E-Rate Supported
Purchases
143. To maximize the costeffectiveness of spending for E-rate
supported services, we focus in this
section on driving down costs for the
services and equipment needed to
deliver high-speed broadband
connectivity to and within schools and
libraries. There is widespread agreement
in the record about the importance of
encouraging cost-effective purchasing in
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the E-rate program. Every dollar spent
inefficiently for E-rate supported
services is one less dollar available to
meet schools’ and libraries’ broadband
connectivity needs.
144. Moreover, there appears to be
substantial room for improvement in Erate-supported purchasing. Although Erate applicants are required to seek
competitive bids for E-rate supported
services and to select the most costeffective bid they receive, there remain
large variations in the amount of money
spent on similar services. Some
variation is to be expected due to
differences in local needs and
conditions, such as between large urban
schools and small rural schools.
However, pre-discount prices also vary
in ways that are unexpected. For
instance, prices paid for
telecommunications and Internet access
in urban areas are often higher than
those in rural areas. This is the opposite
of what we would generally expect,
given that the economies of scale and
distance should generally make
broadband deployment more expensive
to smaller districts in rural America. In
major metropolitan areas, the quartile of
schools paying the most for 100 Mbps
of Internet access services pays nearly
three times more than the quartile
paying the least and the quartile paying
the most for 1 Gbps WAN connections
pays nearly four times more than the
quartile paying the least. Even in the
same state, prices for rural broadband
services can vary widely. For example,
the Idaho Commission for Libraries
explains that prices range from $3.33/
Mbps/month to $397.56/Mbps/month in
its state’s rural libraries, while ALA
notes that the cost for a T1 line can vary
from a few hundred dollars to more than
two thousand dollars per month in
Pennsylvania.
145. This variation suggests there is
more we can do to drive down prices for
E-rate services. It also suggests that
applicants need more information about
purchasing decisions. Therefore, in this
section, we adopt changes to increase
pricing transparency, encourage
consortium purchasing and amend our
LCP rule to clarify that potential service
providers must offer eligible schools,
libraries and consortia the LCP.
A. Increasing Pricing Transparency
146. To assist schools and libraries in
finding the best prices for E-rate
supported services, we adopt
transparency requirements for E-rate
recipients and vendors beginning in
funding year 2015. We agree with those
commenters who argue that
transparency is an essential tool to help
applicants make educated buying
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
decisions. Transparent pricing will give
schools and libraries greater visibility
into pricing and technology choices for
their peers, which we expect will help
applicants in negotiations with
equipment and service providers.
147. Shining a light on prices paid for
E-rate supported services will help the
Commission and third parties ensure
that variations in prices paid are in
accordance with the program rules and
that schools and libraries are purchasing
E-rate supported services cost
effectively. As several commenters
explain, the public should have a
simple method to ensure that their
students are getting the high-speed
connectivity needed for digital learning
at the lowest price. Making the pricing
data publicly available will also
improve analyses performed by the
Commission, state coordinators, and
third parties regarding the program’s
effectiveness and whether more needs to
be done to improve cost-efficient
purchasing by schools and libraries.
Finally, pricing transparency will help
third parties identify best practices for
purchasing and reduce waste across the
program.
148. Therefore, to increase pricing
transparency in the E-rate program, we
will make information regarding the
specific services and equipment
purchased by schools and libraries, as
well as their line item costs, publicly
available on USAC’s Web site for
funding year 2015 and beyond. This
information is currently collected on
FCC Form 471, Block 5, Item 21 (‘‘Item
21s’’). In addition, we agree with
commenters that the information
contained in the Item 21s should be
standardized to provide meaningful
information that is easy to compare
across applications. We delegate
authority to the Bureau to revise and
oversee form standardization, while
directing the Bureau to be mindful of
the need to keep all forms as simple as
possible in light of our goal of
streamlining administration of the
program. Because pricing and
purchasing information will be of
greatest benefit if it is available in
electronic, searchable forms, we also
direct OMD to work with USAC to
ensure ready availability of the
information in these forms, such as
through publicly available APIs and/or
bulk data files posted on USAC’s Web
site.
149. A few commenters express
concern that a state law, local rule, or
an existing long-term contract may
explicitly prohibit pricing disclosure. In
light of these concerns, we will allow
applicants to opt out of making pricing
data public where such applicants can
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
certify and cite to a specific statute, rule,
or other restriction barring publication
of the purchasing price data, such as a
court order or a contract in existence
prior to adoption of this order.
Applicants making this certification
shall retain necessary documentation to
demonstrate the restriction in the event
of a Program Integrity Assurance (PIA)
review or audit. Contracts executed after
the effective date of this Report and
Order, however, may not contain such
restrictions, and any such restrictions
will have no effect.
150. We recognize the arguments of
some commenters that price
transparency increases the risk of anticompetitive behavior by service
providers. It is true that in certain
market conditions, publication of prices
can raise the risk of collusion or price
harmonization. But given the level of
public scrutiny of the E-rate program,
we think price transparency will shine
a light on any anti-competitive behavior.
Moreover, the benefits to applicants
from better pricing information are
likely to outweigh any increased risks of
collusion or price harmonization among
providers. As many commenters note,
some pricing information is already
publicly available through state master
contracts and state public records laws
in a piecemeal fashion—a state of affairs
that carries most of the collusion risks
of broader publication with many fewer
benefits. Sophisticated vendors
interested in their competitors’ pricing
are most likely to be able to avail
themselves of public records laws,
while individual school and library
applicants are less likely to have the
practical ability to navigate these
processes. In contrast, centralized,
easily accessible data about pricing for
purchased services will be more useful
for applicants and program oversight,
while doing little to increase the risk of
collusion. For all these reasons, on
balance, we conclude that increasing
pricing transparency is likely to increase
competition and drive down prices.
151. Some commenters also argue that
transparency will reduce the number of
vendors competing to provide E-rate
supported services because vendors will
leave the program rather than allow
their prices to be made public. Again,
we are not persuaded. As described, in
many states pricing information is
already publicly available in some
fashion, and there is no evidence in the
record that this has lowered
participation in those states. Moreover,
schools and libraries, like all
community anchor institutions, are
valuable customers. Indeed, greater
pricing transparency should help those
vendors offering the best prices attract
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49179
market interest in their services and
equipment, which should help foster a
competitive marketplace.
152. We also disagree with the
argument that school districts and
libraries will find pricing information
too confusing to be useful. As many
commenters note, individual school
districts or libraries often have unique
characteristics that make the prices
available to them lower or higher than
national or regional averages. For
example, small rural schools may
legitimately face higher prices for
broadband connectivity than large urban
schools because of their distance from
the nearest fiber, the dearth of other
broadband customers in their immediate
vicinity, and lack of competitive
options. But E-rate applicants are
already required to make judgments
regarding the costs of proposed services.
To the extent a school or library arms
itself with price information from its
peers and requests a price that a vendor
believes is unreasonably low for some
equipment or service, we are confident
that the vendor will be appropriately
incented to explain any unique
circumstances that justify its higher
price. In sum, even acknowledging that
applicants will face varying
circumstances that affect the prices
available to them, we find that
transparency will aid applicants in
making smarter spending judgments in
accordance with their obligation to
select cost-effective services.
153. Although we require publication
of prices for goods and services
purchased by applicants, we decline at
this time to require public disclosure of
other pricing information, including
available pricing from service providers
or bid responses. Many commenters
argue that submitting bid information is
burdensome, and the goods and services
selected by applicants should represent
the most cost-effective solution for their
needs following a competitive bidding
process, with price as the primary
factor. Therefore, we are persuaded that
the current burden to applicants of
submitting comprehensive bid
information to USAC outweighs any
incremental benefit to the public from
the publication of prices for nonwinning bids, which, by definition,
were not the most cost-effective choice.
At the same time, we take this
opportunity to remind applicants and
vendors that they are responsible for the
retention of all documents related to
their applications, including bids
submitted in response to a solicitation,
in accordance with our rules.
Applicants still may be required to
provide all bid responses during PIA
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49180
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
review of an application or during an
audit.
154. We also decline to require
disclosure of pricing information for
past funding years. Pricing information
on Item 21s has not been published in
the past, and the Commission has
redacted pricing information from
Freedom of Information Act responses
at the request of service providers
claiming it was proprietary information.
Given stakeholders’ expectations when
prior-year applications were submitted,
we will continue to treat recent Item 21
information as potentially sensitive for
funding year 2014 and before. However,
this Report and Order serves as notice
to all service providers that the receipt
of E-rate support will be conditioned on
disclosure of this pricing information
beginning in funding year 2015.
155. Finally, we terminate the
program the Commission created in the
Second Report and Order, 68 FR 36931,
June 20, 2003, testing an online list of
internal connections equipment eligible
for discounts. USAC no longer updates
the database in part because of the
burdens it placed on USAC and
vendors. Meanwhile, the publication of
pricing data as provided will provide a
less burdensome and more accurate
representation of the goods and services
being purchased by applicants with Erate support, as well as the prices paid.
We received no comments objecting to
termination of the eligible products
database.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
B. Encouraging Consortia and Bulk
Purchasing
156. Consortium purchasing can drive
down the prices paid by schools and
libraries for E-rate supported services. In
this section, we reduce or eliminate
some of the existing barriers to
applicants’ participation in consortia.
As an initial matter, we direct
Commission staff to work with USAC to
prioritize review of consortia
applications. We also adopt rules to
make it easier for applicants to take
advantage of consortium bidding and
clarify some apparent misconceptions
about consortia participation. In
response to concerns raised by E-rate
applicants about the current method for
allocating E-rate support among
members of an E-rate consortium, in the
accompanying FNPRM, we propose to
amend the way consortia determine the
amount of support to be received by
their members to ensure that E-rate
applicants that choose to join a
consortium do not risk receiving less
support, and seek comment on other
ways to encourage consortium
purchasing.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
1. Speeding Review of Consortium
Applications
157. In order to address applicants’
complaints that consortia applications
have historically received reviews late
in the application review process, we
direct OMD and the Bureau, working
with USAC, to prioritize application
review for state and regional consortia
applicants. OMD and USAC have
already undertaken an initiative to
speed review of all E-rate applications,
with a particular focus on broadband
applications. We applaud that work and
want to build on the positive results,
particularly with respect to state and
regional consortia applications. We
expect that the improved processing
times for consortia applications will
result in more funding commitments
flowing faster to schools and libraries,
which will motivate more applicants to
join consortia in future funding years.
2. Preferred Master Contracts
158. To further encourage applicants
to take advantage of bulk buying
opportunities, we delegate authority to
the Bureau to designate preferred master
contracts for category two equipment.
The Bureau may make such a
designation for the purpose of (a)
exempting the preferred master contract
from the FCC Form 470 filing
requirement and (b) requiring applicants
to include the preferred master contract
in their bid evaluations even if the
master contract is not submitted as a bid
in response to the applicant’s FCC Form
470. The Bureau has authority to
institute either one or both of these
exceptions for a preferred master
contract and must re-evaluate its
decision to designate a contract as a
preferred master contract every two
funding years.
159. We authorize the Bureau to
designate a master contract as a
preferred master contract if it offers
eligible entities nationwide the
opportunity to obtain excellent pricing
for category two services as reported on
FCC Form 471. National availability of
the equipment offered on a preferred
master contract will ensure that all Erate applicants have the opportunity to
take advantage of its pricing.
160. We limit preferred master
contracts to equipment used in category
two internal connections at this time.
Commodities such as the equipment
used in internal connections lend
themselves to bulk purchasing
arrangements, and can be shipped
nationwide. The more varied nature of
services, such as broadband services
and internal connection installation
services, makes implementing bulk
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
purchase arrangements more
complicated. We therefore choose not to
authorize the designation of preferred
master contracts for such services at this
time.
161. We agree with commenters who
support national bulk buying
opportunities because of the unmatched
economy of scale national purchasing
allows. In order to help ensure such
scale (and thus maximize the benefit to
applicants and the E-rate program), we
authorize the Bureau to limit the
number of master contracts it designates
as preferred. Recognizing, however, that
E-rate applicants may still be able to
negotiate better pricing from vendors
not associated with a preferred master
contract, we decline to require
applicants to purchase services from a
preferred master contract at this time.
a. FCC Form 470 Exception
162. Allowing applicants to take
internal connections equipment from a
preferred master contract without filing
an FCC Form 470 will ease the
administrative burden on applicants
without compromising costeffectiveness. Several commenters
encouraged us to eliminate the FCC
Form 470 filing requirement for certain
master contracts because of the
administrative burdens associated with
competitive bidding. Although
competitive bidding is vital to limiting
waste and ensuring that services are
provided at the lowest possible rates, in
the limited case of equipment available
on a preferred master contract, we find
that it is not necessary for applicants to
file an FCC Form 470 because the terms
of the preferred master contract assure
us that applicants will receive the best
possible pricing on the services they
order. We cannot at this time exempt
master contracts that are not preferred
master contracts from any competitive
bidding requirements because we do not
have the same assurances with respect
to pricing for all master contracts.
163. Applicants who wish to take
services from a preferred master
contract without filing an FCC Form 470
would indicate on their FCC Form 471
that they are purchasing services from a
preferred master contract instead of
citing to an FCC Form 470.
b. Bid Evaluation Requirement
164. Requiring applicants to include
preferred master contracts in bid
evaluations helps ensure that applicants
make cost-effective purchases while
enabling them to select the services that
best suit their needs. Applicants will
only be required to include equipment
available on a preferred master contract
in their bid evaluations if it is the same
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
equipment the applicant sought on its
FCC Form 470. Applicants would still
have the ability to select bids submitted
by service providers in response to the
FCC Forms 470, as long as the
applicants’ evaluation treats the price of
eligible equipment as the primary factor
in bid selection and the selected bid is
the most cost-effective.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
3. Authority To Seek Consortium Bids
165. To further increase cost-effective
purchasing by applicants, we next
amend our rules to permit a consortium
lead to identify on its consortium’s FCC
Form 470 the schools, school districts
and libraries for which it has authority
to seek competitive bids for E-rate
eligible services even if it does not have
authority to order services for those
entities. Our rules currently require the
FCC Forms 470 and FCC Forms 471 be
signed by a person authorized to order
eligible services for the applicants and
do not distinguish between authority for
E-rate consortium leads to seek bids and
authority for consortium leads to
purchase the services. As a result,
consortium members who are unwilling
to cede authority to purchase E-rate
eligible services to the consortium lead
release their own FCC Form 470 and
likely do not attract the number of
competitively priced bids, if any, from
competitive vendors. By aggregating
potential demand in the bidding
process, and using the FCC Form 470
process to attract bidders, a consortium
can drive down the price of eligible
services even for its members who wish
to order services on their own. This rule
change will take effect for funding year
2015. Our rules will continue to permit
consortium leads to purchase services
on behalf of some or all of their
members and we encourage consortium
leads to seek both forms of
authorization, as appropriate.
4. Correcting Misconceptions
166. We also take this opportunity to
correct misconceptions about consortia
applications that appear to have
prevented some applicants from joining
consortia, and to remind applicants and
service providers about already-existing
rules that should work to encourage
participation in consortia. We remind
applicants that E-rate rules do not
require a consortium to solicit or select
a single vendor to provide service to all
consortium members and that
applicants can authorize a consortium
lead to act on their behalf for multiple
years.
167. Consortia selection of multiple
service providers. Some commenters
argue that consortia purchasing may
actually increase prices by excluding
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
smaller service providers who are not
able to serve the full needs of a
consortium. In light of these comments,
we remind all stakeholders that
consortia do not need to solicit or select
a single vendor able to provide service
to all members of a consortium. Rather,
a consortium may invite vendors to bid
on services to a subset of consortia
members, and may find that a
combination of different service
providers offer the most cost-effective
solution for consortium members. Even
though a larger service provider may
enjoy economies of scale and scope, it
will not necessarily be able to provide
competitively priced service in every
area in which a consortium’s members
are located. Therefore, consortia
applicants should make clear in their
FCC Forms 470 and any associated RFPs
that they are not required to select a
single provider that can meet the needs
of all members. While some consortia
select a single service provider, many
others select a combination of service
providers to meet the needs of their
consortium members. In light of the
apparent confusion on this issue, we
direct USAC to remind applicants and
vendors, during USAC training and
other outreach, that consortia can solicit
bids from service providers to cover a
portion of the services sought by the
consortia.
168. Multi-year authorization. We also
clarify that applicants can authorize a
consortium lead to act on their behalf
for multiple years, and need not reaffirm
that authorization every funding year. In
order to ensure that a consortium lead
is not seeking bids or applying for
support on behalf of schools and
libraries without their knowledge or
consent, our rules have required and
continue to require FCC Forms 470 and
FCC Forms 471 to be signed by a person
authorized to seek or order services for
the applicants. To show that it is
authorized to seek or order eligible
services for the applicants, a consortium
lead may provide copies of relevant
state statutes or regulations requiring
members to participate in the
consortium or some other proof that
each consortium member is aware that
it is represented in the application.
169. Another common way for a
consortium lead to demonstrate its
authority to seek or order eligible
services on behalf of its members is to
solicit letters of agency (LOAs) from
consortium members. Some commenters
ask us to ease consortia’s administrative
burdens by reducing the frequency with
which applicants provide LOAs or
eliminate the practice of applicants
providing LOAs to consortium leads.
We decline to eliminate the LOA
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49181
practice altogether because, in many
circumstances, an LOA could be the
only means a consortium lead has to
demonstrate its authority to seek or
order services on behalf of a specific
consortium member. We can, however,
clarify that applicants may provide
consortia leads with LOAs that cover
multiple funding years as long as those
years are specified in the LOA and as
long as the authorization includes the
type of services covered by the LOA.
5. Other Rules Changes
170. We also add a definition of
‘‘consortium’’ in our rules that is based
on the definition of ‘‘library
consortium’’ that has long been a part of
our rules. In the definition, we also
make it clear that consortia may include
health care providers eligible under the
Rural Health Care program and public
sector (governmental) entities,
including, but not limited to, state
colleges and state universities, state
educational broadcasters, counties, and
municipalities. This change does not
alter requirements for applicants and
service providers.
C. Offering the Lowest Corresponding
Price
171. In order to help ensure that Erate applicants make cost-effective
purchasing decisions, we remind
service providers that they not only
must charge eligible schools, libraries,
and consortia the LCP when providing
E-rate services, but also must offer
eligible entities the LCP when
submitting competitive bids to provide
E-rate supported services.
172. The LCP rule prohibits an E-rate
provider from ‘‘charg[ing]’’ E-rate
applicants a price higher than the
lowest price that provider charges to
non-residential customers who are
similarly situated to a particular school,
library, rural health care provider or
consortium that purchase directly from
the service provider. In authorizing the
creation of the E-rate program, Congress
imposed an obligation on
telecommunications carriers to provide
services to schools and libraries at rates
less than the amounts charged for
similar services to other parties. To
ensure that schools, libraries and
consortia participating in the E-rate
program receive all services at the
lowest rates available, the Commission
extended this requirement to apply to
all providers of E-rate supported
services. The LCP rule benefits E-rate
applicants and the Fund by ensuring
that the price for E-rate supported
services is no more than the market
price for those services, absent a
showing by a provider that it faces
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49182
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
demonstrably higher costs to serve a
particular school or library.
173. While the LCP rule does not
expressly mention an obligation to
‘‘offer’’ eligible entities the LCP, this
obligation was articulated in the
Universal Service First Report and
Order where the Commission described
the LCP provision as requiring service
providers to ‘‘offer’’ services that
comply with the LCP. To ensure that
applicants receive the best possible bids
from service providers in response to
their FCC Forms 470, consistent with
the Commission’s intent, we take this
opportunity to reemphasize that our
LCP rule, as it is now codified in our
rules, means that providers must both (i)
submit bids to applicants at prices no
higher than the lowest price they charge
to similarly-situated non-residential
customers for similar services; and (ii)
charge applicants a price no higher than
the LCP. In abundance of caution, we
also modify our LCP rule to better
reflect the dual nature of this obligation.
174. Because the LCP rule makes
prices more affordable for schools and
libraries, as contemplated by the statute,
we also take this opportunity to agree
with those commenters who support
stepped-up enforcement of our LCP
rule. We therefore direct the
Enforcement Bureau to devote
additional resources to investigating,
and where appropriate, bringing
enforcement actions against service
providers who violate the LCP rule.
V. Making the E-Rate Application
Process and Other E-Rate Processes
Fast, Simple and Efficient
175. In this section, we focus on
making the E-rate application process
and other E-rate processes fast, simple
and efficient. There is broad agreement
on the need to simplify the
administration of the E-rate program in
order to reduce the burden on
applicants, make the most efficient use
of E-rate funding, and foster greater
participation in the E-rate program. We
therefore adopt a host of programmatic
changes in this section, including
simplifying the application process by,
among other things, providing a process
for expediting the filing and review of
applications involving multi-year
contracts; eliminating technology plans
for internal connections; simplifying
and clarifying applicants’ discount rate
calculations; simplifying the invoicing
and disbursement process; and
requiring all USF requests for review to
be filed initially with USAC. As we
streamline the program, we remain
mindful of our need to gather relevant
data from applicants and to protect
against waste, fraud, and abuse.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
Accordingly, in this section, we also
adopt measures to protect against waste,
fraud, and abuse.
176. We also direct USAC to take
steps to reduce the administrative
burden on applicants by processing and
managing applications more efficiently,
modernizing its E-rate information
technology (IT) systems, timely
publishing all non-confidential E-rate
data in an open and standardized
format, and communicating more
clearly with E-rate applicants and
service providers. We recognize that, as
part of this modernization effort, USAC,
working with OMD and the Bureau,
already has made great strides, and we
expect that they will continue to work
together closely to push these reforms
forward.
177. USAC, working with the Bureau
and OMD, will implement the
administrative changes we adopt today
in funding year 2015, unless otherwise
noted. In the Universal Service Third
Report and Order, 62 FR 56118, October
29, 1997, the Commission delegated
authority to the Bureau to issue orders
interpreting our E-rate rules as
necessary to ensure that support for
services provided to schools and
libraries operate to further our universal
service goals. We re-affirm that
delegation. We also direct the Bureau,
working with OMD and other
Commission staff, to make changes to
the E-rate forms, as needed, and to
provide direction to USAC to
implement the changes, including
providing clarification and guidance in
the case of any ambiguity that may arise.
These changes, taken together, will
result in a program that is easier to
navigate for applicants and vendors,
will improve program efficiency by
eliminating unnecessary complexities,
and will constrain USAC’s
administrative expenses, ultimately
resulting in a cost savings to the E-rate
program that can be used for the benefit
of schools and libraries.
A. Simplifying the Application Process
178. We agree with those commenters
who support simplifying the E-rate
application process as an important part
of streamlining the administration of the
E-rate program. We therefore adopt a
simplified application process for multiyear contracts; eliminate the
requirement for technology plans; ease
the signed contract requirement to allow
applicants to seek E-rate support once
they have entered into a legally binding
agreement with a service provider;
exempt from our competitive bidding
requirements purchases of commercially
available high-speed broadband services
that cost less than $3,600 per year;
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
require the use of electronic filings; and
enable direct connections between
schools and libraries.
1. Simplifying the Application Process
for Multi-Year Contracts
179. As an initial matter, we simplify
the application process for funding
requests that involve multi-year
contracts for eligible services. This
simplified application process will be
available to any applicant, beginning in
funding year 2015, when: (1) The
applicant has a multi-year contract for
E-rate supported services that is no
longer than five years, and (2) any
changes in the requested services or to
the terms and conditions under which
those services are provided are within
the scope of the establishing FCC Form
470 and the applicable contract. As the
Commission proposed in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM, applicants that
elect to use the multi-year contract
funding review process will only be
required to submit a complete FCC
Form 471 for the first funding year in
which they are seeking E-rate support
under the multi-year contract. All
applicants, even those currently in the
middle of a multi-year contract, will be
required to file a complete FCC Form
471 once. In subsequent funding years
covered by a multi-year contract,
applicants will be permitted to use a
streamlined application process that
will be shorter, require less information
from the applicants, and be approved
through an expedited review process,
absent evidence of waste, fraud, or
abuse.
180. By minimizing pre-commitment
application review by USAC in
subsequent years of a multi-year
contract, we anticipate USAC will be
able to review applications more
quickly while lowering the
administrative burdens on applicants
and without increasing the likelihood of
waste, fraud and abuse. While
applicants taking advantage of this new
process will benefit greatly from
expedited review and the reduced
administrative burden, this process does
not guarantee funding in subsequent
years, even for the same services. E-rate
funding will continue to be committed
and disbursed on an annual basis.
Applicants must be eligible for E-rate
support in each of the years funding is
sought, and the services must be eligible
for support in each such year.
181. We agree with those commenters
who suggest that five years is an
appropriate maximum length of time for
contracts seeking to use a multi-year
contract application process.
Commenters note that a five-year
contract length is consistent with other
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
procurement models in the education
industry. We therefore find that the
three-year limit the Commission
proposed in the E-rate Modernization
NPRM is too restrictive. Although we do
not adopt a maximum contract length in
this Report and Order, in the
accompanying FNPRM we do seek
further comment on setting a maximum
contract length for E-rate supported
services.
182. To facilitate these changes to our
application process, we direct the
Bureau and OMD to work with USAC to
revise the application process for multiyear contracts so that an applicant is not
required to complete the full FCC Form
471 after the first year the applicant
seeks funding for services provided
pursuant to a multi-year contract that
has a maximum term of five years.
Under this revised application process,
applicants must file a complete FCC
Form 471 in the first year of a multi-year
contract that is eligible for this
streamlined review process, but in
subsequent contract years applicants
will only need to provide basic
information identifying the applicant,
confirm that the funding request is a
continuation of an FRN from a previous
funding year based on a multi-year
contract, and identify and explain any
changes to their application, such as
changes in the discount rate, the
membership of a consortium, or the
services ordered. (All such changes
must be within the scope of the
establishing FCC Form 470 and the
underlying agreement.) While USAC
and the Commission staff, of course,
remain able to request other information
necessary to reach a commitment
decision, we direct USAC to aim to
minimize such requests.
183. Although some commenters
would prefer to file a single FCC Form
471 to cover multiple years of a multiyear contract, we find that a streamlined
filing and review process for subsequent
contract years of a multi-year contract
balances the applicant’s desire for
expedited review and administrative
convenience with USAC’s need to
confirm basic information about the
request in subsequent years, and to
verify an applicant’s interest in applying
for funds for that funding year. USAC
will review the initial FCC Form 471
applications associated with multi-year
contracts as thoroughly as it reviews
applications covered by one-year
contracts. In subsequent years of a
multi-year contract, however, where
USAC has already reviewed a funding
application for the first year of a multiyear contract, USAC will be able to
streamline its pre-commitment review.
If there are no changes to the services
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
purchased, conducting the same review
for each subsequent year of the contract
is not likely to identify errors in the
application.
184. While we amend our rules to
simplify applicants’ use of multi-year
contracts, we decline to allow
applicants to receive multi-year funding
commitments. In the E-rate
Modernization NPRM, the Commission
sought comment on allowing multi-year
funding commitments. The Commission
cited to its recent decision to allow
multi-year funding commitments in the
Healthcare Connect Fund Order, 78 FR
38606, June 27, 2013, in which the
Commission noted that, by eliminating
the need for applicants to file every
year, multi-year funding commitments
would reduce uncertainty and minimize
the administrative burden for applicants
and for USAC. Despite support from
commenters for similar multi-year
funding commitments in the E-rate
context, important differences between
the Healthcare Connect Fund and the Erate program prevent us from adopting
multi-year funding commitments in the
E-rate program. Unlike the Healthcare
Connect Fund, demand for E-rate funds
significantly outstrips supply. Further,
there is no record yet on the effect of the
Healthcare Connect Fund Order on the
Healthcare Connect Fund or as a
constraint on funding available for other
applicants in the fund. Although multiyear commitments may slightly increase
administrative efficiency for applicants
and USAC, obligating funds years in
advance of their use would be
detrimental to the management of the
program. Moreover, the multi-year
contract application process we adopt
today should allow the E-rate program
and applicants to achieve many of the
efficiencies of a multi-year funding
commitment process.
2. Eliminating the Technology Plan
Requirements
185. In the interest of reducing the
administrative burden on E-rate
applicants, beginning with funding year
2015, we eliminate from our rules the
technology plan requirements for
applicants seeking E-rate support for
category two services. The Commission
previously eliminated the technology
plan requirements for priority one
services, and having considered the
record, we now agree with commenters
that the burden of our requirement that
applicants for internal connections and
basic maintenance of internal
connections have certified technology
plans outweighs the benefits,
particularly for small applicants with
limited resources.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49183
186. We agree with those commenters
who argue that technology planning is
an important step in the process of longterm planning on how best to procure
and utilize internal connections. We are
certain though that, even absent this
rule, technology planning will continue
to occur because technology has become
a central part of school and library
infrastructure, and technology planning
has become integrated into applicants’
core strategic planning. We also expect
that the structural changes we make to
the E-rate program’s approach to
providing support for internal
connections and basic maintenance of
internal connections will encourage
good planning. We strongly encourage
all applicants, both large and small, to
carefully review existing plans given the
many changes to the E-rate program that
we adopt in this Report and Order.
However, we find that the burden of
getting formal approval and certification
of these technology plans outweighs the
benefits to the program.
3. Exempting Low-Dollar Purchases of
Commercially Available Business-Class
Internet Access From Competitive
Bidding Rules
187. We create an exemption in our
competitive bidding rules for applicants
seeking E-rate support to purchase
commercially available, business-class
Internet access services that cost $3,600
or less for a single year. An Internet
access service will be eligible for this
exemption only if it offers bandwidth
speeds of at least 100 Mbps downstream
and 10 Mbps upstream for a prediscount price of $3,600 or less
annually, including any one-time
installation and equipment charges, and
the service and price are commercially
available. Based on our review of
commercial offerings online, this $3,600
annual limit is a reasonable maximum
that will allow some applicants to
purchase commercially available
business-class Internet access. We
clarify that the $3,600 annual limit is
the pre-discount amount for the service
per school or library. So, for example, a
library system with three library
branches could qualify for this
exemption if it purchased 100 Mbps
downstream and 20 Mbps upstream
Internet access service for each of its
three branches at a cost of $250 per
month for each branch. Each school or
library building must receive the
eligible service at a cost of less than
$3,600 annually and applicants may not
average the cost of services across a
number of schools or libraries. This
exemption will become effective in
funding year 2015. As explained,
applicants may purchase services with a
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49184
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
multi-year contract, such as a two-year
term, but we will not make multi-year
commitments. Applicants will therefore
still be required to file an FCC Form 471
in the second year of the service.
188. We recognize that competitive
bidding is an essential component of the
E-rate program. At the same time, the
record supports a finding that
administrative costs associated with the
Commission’s competitive bidding rules
and requirements may deter program
participation by entities requesting lowdollar Internet access services. We are
particularly concerned that smaller
schools and libraries may not be
purchasing high-speed Internet
connectivity through the E-rate program
due to these administrative costs.
Consistent with the goals we adopt
today to increase broadband and
streamline the administrative process,
we expect this limited exemption to
competitive bidding will encourage
additional bandwidth purchases and
increased program participation. This
exemption is likely to be particularly
attractive to small applicants that face a
disproportionate administrative burden
from the competitive bidding process
and encourage these entities to increase
bandwidth speeds in the short term.
Moreover, the bandwidth speeds
required to qualify for this program are
consistent with the goals we have
outlined in this Report and Order, albeit
typically for ‘‘best efforts’’ class services
rather than dedicated connections. We
believe that such ‘‘best efforts’’ service
will frequently be sufficient for smaller
entities with fewer students or patrons
or in rural areas where fiber has not
been deployed. For example, ALA notes
that ‘‘[o]ver half of all rural libraries
have internet speeds of 4 Mbps or less
. . . and only 17 percent of rural
libraries have speeds greater than 10
Mbps.’’ As of 2012, only nine percent of
all libraries have speeds greater than
100 Mbps. For these entities and others,
this exemption will provide a simple
and efficient method to purchase
business-class Internet access and
quickly increase connectivity speeds.
189. With respect to their purchase of
such services, applicants will be exempt
from the competitive bidding rules
under § 54.503(a) through (c), the
certification requirement under
§ 54.504(a)(1)(vi), and the corresponding
rule on the selection of a provider of
eligible services under § 54.511(a) of our
rules. Such applicants will use the FCC
Form 471 to certify to their purchase of
an eligible commercially available
business-class Internet access service.
We remind applicants of their obligation
to comply with record retention rules
when purchasing eligible Internet
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
access. We also caution applicants and
vendors that our gift rules will continue
to apply even where a purchase
arrangement is exempt from the
competitive bidding process.
190. We find that purchasing highspeed Internet access with at least 100
Mbps/10 Mbps for no more than a prediscount price of $3,600 is a costeffective service offering, particularly in
light of the benefits for smaller schools
and libraries. In order to ensure that the
benefits of removing the administrative
burden continue to outweigh the costs
of exempting competitive bidding, we
also delegate authority to the Bureau to
lower the annual cost of broadband
services or raise the speed threshold of
broadband services eligible for this
competitive bidding exemption, based
on a determination of what rates and
speeds are commercially available and
will meet the needs of at least some
subset of schools and libraries. We
decline to adopt a de minimis
exemption for other eligible services at
this time, but we keep the record open
on this issue and look forward to
learning from the experience of
applicants who take advantage of the
exemption from competitive bidding
that we adopt today.
4. Easing the Signed Contract
Requirement
191. In order to further increase the
efficiency of the administrative process
and simplify the application process for
applicants, we revise § 54.504(a) of our
rules to require that applicants have a
signed contract or other legally binding
agreement in place prior to submitting
their FCC Forms 471 to USAC. The rule
had required applicants to submit their
FCC Forms 471 requesting support for
services ‘‘upon signing a contract for
eligible services.’’ While this rule
ensures that applicants have negotiated
and agreed to contractual terms prior to
the filing of an FCC Form 471 requesting
support for E-rate services, there are
many instances where applicants have
an agreement in place with their service
provider or are already receiving
services, but have difficulty obtaining
signatures prior to the submission of
their FCC Forms 471. Although we
received no comments on this issue, in
many instances, applicants have sought
a waiver of this rule after having failed
to obtain signatures prior to the
submission of their FCC Forms 471. The
Commission has consistently waived
the requirement of a signed contract for
petitioners who have demonstrated that
they had a legally binding agreement in
place for the relevant funding year.
Rather than requiring applicants to seek
such waivers, we now revise our rules
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to require applicants to have a signed
contract or other legally binding
agreement in place prior to filing their
FCC Forms 471. This revision to our
rules will be effective beginning in
funding year 2015.
192. Applicants and service providers
should understand that, although no
longer required, a signed contract will
constitute the best evidence that a
legally binding agreement exists. Absent
the existence of a signed contract, in
determining whether a legally binding
agreement is in place, we direct USAC
to consider the existence of a written
offer from the service provider
containing all the material terms and
conditions and a written acceptance of
that offer as evidence of the existence of
a legally binding agreement. For
example, a bid for the services that
includes all material terms and
conditions provided in response to an
FCC Form 470 would be sufficient
evidence of an offer and an email from
the applicant telling the service
provider the bid was selected would
suffice as evidence of acceptance. In
addition, after a commitment of
funding, an applicant’s receipt of
services consistent with the offer and
with the applicant’s request for E-rate
support will also constitute evidence of
the existence of a sufficient offer and
acceptance. A verbal offer and/or
acceptance will not be considered
evidence of the existence of a legally
binding agreement. Revising the rule in
this manner will provide applicants
with sufficient flexibility to finalize
their service agreements after filing their
FCC Forms 471 while protecting the
Fund against waste, fraud, and abuse.
We also remind parties that they must
retain all relevant documents for 10
years, consistent with our revised
document retention rules.
5. Requiring Electronic Filing of
Documents
193. We also agree with commenters
who suggest that, in order to streamline
the administration of the program, we
should require E-rate applicants and
service providers to file all documents
with USAC electronically and USAC to
make all notifications electronically,
and therefore direct USAC, in
consultation with the Bureau and OMD,
to phase in such a requirement over the
next three funding years. As the
Commission noted in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM, the electronic
submission of FCC forms will improve
the efficiency of submitting and
processing applications, resulting in
faster commitments and disbursements
of E-rate funding. Furthermore,
electronic filing will reduce the
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
program’s administrative costs because
USAC will not have manually entered
data into its electronic system from
paper submissions. Electronic filing will
result in fewer errors on forms and other
communications between USAC and
applicants and service providers.
Therefore, beginning in funding year
2017, we will require the submission of
all filings and notifications
electronically.
194. Some commenters argue that Erate applicants and service providers
should have the option of filing paper
copies. We recognize that applicants
vary widely in connectivity, technical
resources and administrative resources,
and a limited exemption to our
mandatory electronic filing requirement
would allow applicants and USAC to
reap many of the benefits of electronic
filing while allowing the program to
respond to the needs of all applicants
and service providers. We will therefore
allow applicants who can demonstrate
that they have insufficient resources to
make electronic filings to file paper
copies of applications and other
documents. We direct the Bureau and
OMD, working with USAC, to determine
the circumstances under which
applicants may be exempt from this
mandatory electronic filing requirement
and the process for applicants to seek
permission to file paper copies of
documents.
6. Enabling Direct Connections Between
Schools and Libraries
195. In the interest of promoting
access to high-speed broadband
connections in the simplest and most
efficient manner possible, we take
action consistent with a suggestion
made by the ALA, and supported by
other commenters, that we allow rural
schools and libraries eligible for E-rate
support to establish direct connections
for the purpose of accessing high-speed
broadband services. As ALA explains,
in many rural communities, a library
with low bandwidth may be in close
proximity (e.g., across the street) to a
school with significantly higher
bandwidth and could be easily added to
the school WAN. We find that allowing
these connections will afford some
schools and libraries that presently lack
access to high-speed broadband the
opportunity to quickly and efficiently
benefit from such connections.
196. We recognize that it will likely
be necessary to waive some of our rules
to allow E-rate support for such
connections. However, the record is not
fulsome enough for us to determine
with certainty what rules will need to be
waived for each particular direct
connection project. We therefore
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
encourage applicants to file waiver
requests for the purpose of seeking Erate support for such direct connections.
We also direct the Bureau to
expeditiously consider such waiver
requests and, as appropriate, to waive
our rules, as is necessary, to grant such
requests, including the rule that would
otherwise require both the school and
the library to apply for E-rate support.
We further direct the Bureau to report
back to us on any such projects so that
we may consider whether to amend our
rules in the future to allow for such
projects.
B. Simplifying Discount Rate
Calculations
197. In the interest of making the Erate application process and other E-rate
processes fast, simple and efficient, we
adopt four changes to the procedures for
applicants to use in calculating their Erate discounts. First, we require school
districts to calculate and use districtwide discount rates for each
application, thus eliminating the need
to calculate different discount rates
depending on which schools in a
district are receiving services. Second,
we modernize our definitions of ‘‘rural’’
and ‘‘urban’’ for purposes of
determining applicants’ discount rates.
Third, we provide direction on how
schools and school districts that receive
funding under the new community
eligibility provision (CEP) of the United
States Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA) National School Lunch Program
(NSLP) should calculate their E-rate
discount rates. Finally, in order to
protect the program against waste, fraud
and abuse, we also direct USAC to
require schools that calculate discount
eligibility based on projections from
school-wide surveys to base their E-rate
discount rate only on the surveys they
actually collect.
1. Adopting District-Wide Discount
Rates
198. Consistent with our goal of
making the E-rate application process
and other E-rate processes fast, simple
and efficient, we adopt the proposal in
the E-rate Modernization NPRM to
amend our rules to require each school
district to calculate and use a single
district-wide discount rate, rather than
calculating and using building-bybuilding discount rates. This
requirement will be effective beginning
with funding year 2015. The record
demonstrates that E-rate applicants find
the current building-by-building
discount calculation approach to be
confusing, time-consuming, and fraught
with the potential for errors. It is also a
significant source of delay in USAC’s
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49185
application review process. We agree
with commenters that adopting a
district-wide discount rate will simplify
and streamline the E-rate application
process for applicants as well as USAC,
while creating a more equitable system
of determining the discount schools and
libraries should receive for eligible
services.
199. Requiring the use of a districtwide discount ensures the E-rate
program provides higher discount rates
for higher poverty school districts,
while more closely matching the E-rate
funding mechanism to the actual
accounting practices and organizational
structure of school districts. Individual
schools within a district do not have
their own local taxing authority nor do
they generally have a budget that is
legally separate from the district’s
budget. Moreover, the tax base of a
district is the entire district population,
not just the population associated with
a subset of schools. While individual
schools within a district may have more
or fewer student eligible for NSLP,
school districts develop consolidated
budgets and allocate resources to
support comprehensively all of the
district’s students. As such, we find that
it is more appropriate to gauge a
district’s relative need for funding based
on its entire student population.
200. The record demonstrates the
many benefits of adopting a districtwide discount. For example, districts
will no longer need to complete
multiple steps to calculate the
appropriate discounts for each building.
Districts will also no longer need to file
separate FCC Forms 471 for different
combinations of schools that produce
different discount level requests. Also,
by using a district-wide discount,
districts will no longer have to make
difficult determinations regarding noninstructional facilities (NIFs). For
example, adopting a district-wide
discount approach will eliminate the
confusing and possibly misleading
calculation for a NIF with a classroom
that requires the applicant to rely on a
snapshot of students on a single day for
the specific discount. Consortia
applications will also be simpler and
more equitable since each member of
the consortium, whether an individual
school or an entire district, will use the
discount level for the district in which
it is located, calculated on a districtlevel basis.
201. The record also demonstrates
that a district-wide approach will
reduce the administrative burden on
USAC by removing the need to identify
and verify each school’s discount rate.
Commenters note that associated USAC
efforts to validate the calculation are
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49186
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
time-consuming. Reducing the burden
of verifying each school’s discount rate
should speed the review process, and
therefore help speed funding decisions
to the benefit of all applicants.
202. Modifying our rules so that
schools calculate a district-wide
discount rate should also benefit
libraries, which already use the districtwide discount rate of the school
districts in which they are located. We
anticipate libraries will benefit from this
change because school districts will
have to determine their district-wide
discount rates to submit their FCC
Forms 471 and thus libraries should
have an easier time getting that
information in a timely fashion from the
relevant school districts.
203. Several commenters express
concern that a district-wide discount
calculation could deprive schools and
libraries in higher poverty
neighborhoods of internal connection
funding. However, the revisions we
make in this Report and Order to
funding internal connections will
provide predictable support for internal
connections for all schools and libraries,
and provide a greater discount for
higher poverty school districts and the
libraries located in those school
districts.
204. School districts rarely purchase
broadband on a school or neighborhood
basis but instead buy on a larger scale.
Cost efficiencies and budgeting realities
result in school districts purchasing
telecommunications and Internet
services on a district-wide basis or in
geographic areas within that district that
align with service provider availability.
Although commenters also express
concern that school districts will be
unable to target E-rate resources to
schools and libraries in lower-income
neighborhoods if a district-wide
discount calculation is in place, the
Commission’s decision to adopt a
district-wide discount will not affect
school districts’ ability to apply for
funding based on the connectivity needs
of individual schools. We also take this
opportunity to remind school districts
that they are under an obligation to
ensure ‘‘that the most disadvantaged
schools and libraries that are treated as
sharing in the service receive an
appropriate share of benefits from those
services.’’
205. In light of the benefits to school
districts and libraries of adopting a
district-wide discount, we revise
§ 54.505(b)(4) of our rules to require
school districts to calculate their E-rate
discounts by: Dividing the total number
of students in the district eligible for
NSLP by the total number of students in
the district and comparing that single
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
figure against the discount matrix to
determine the school district’s discount
rate for E-rate supported services. All
public schools and libraries within that
public school district will receive the
same discount rate. For the sake of
simplicity, library systems that have
branches or outlets in more than one
public school district should use the
address of the central outlet or main
administrative office to determine
which public school district the library
system is in, and should use that public
located in school district’s discount rate
when applying as a library system or on
behalf of individual libraries within that
system.
206. In addition, our adoption of a
district-wide discount allows us to
permit applicants to add schools within
their districts that were inadvertently
omitted from a district’s E-rate funding
applications even post-commitment.
Our rules currently require schools and
libraries to list on their FCC Forms 471
every entity that will receive E-rate
supported services under that
application. Even when a school district
is intending to use the requested service
to serve all the schools in its district, it
sometimes inadvertently omits an
eligible school from the application. The
district has the opportunity to correct
such an omission if it catches the error
when it receives from USAC its Receipt
Acknowledgement Letter (RAL), which
summarizes the district’s application
and funding requested. However, if it
does not notice the error by the time its
funding commitment letter is issued,
but it is later discovered by USAC as
part of a post-commitment review—for
example, an audit or other assessment—
that eligible school technically is not
allowed to receive E-rate funding, under
the current procedures, even though it
is an eligible school and the services
were meant to serve the entire district.
This procedure exists because omission
of one school from a discount rate
calculation can change the discount the
district receives, as each school’s
discount is calculated separately. With
our move to a district-wide discount
calculation, districts will be including
all the students from all their schools in
their discount calculation. As such, we
find that an applicant can add eligible
schools within its district that were
inadvertently omitted from its
applications, even after the deadline for
making changes to the FCC Form 471.
207. We recognize that some schools
use a federally approved alternative
mechanism, such as a survey
alternative, to determine their discount
percentage. We do not anticipate any
negative ramifications to districts with
any such schools because, regardless of
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the method a school district uses to
establish its discount, it must determine
a district-wide percentage of students
eligible for the free and reduced lunch
program from the total student
population.
208. While we do not specifically
define the term ‘‘school district,’’ an
applicant should determine its discount
using all E-rate eligible students in
schools that fall under the control of a
central educational agency. Commenters
note that private and charter schools
generally operate independently of the
main public school district and are
individually responsible for their
finances and administration. We
therefore agree with commenters that
these educational entities and local
public school districts should calculate
their discounts separately if not
affiliated financially or operationally
with a school district. Independent
charter schools, private schools, and
other eligible educational facilities that
are seeking support for more than one
school building should factor all
students in facilities under the control
of their central administrative agency
into the discount calculation.
209. Consortia applications will
continue to use a simple average of all
members’ discounts to calculate the
overall consortium discount, but will
now be required to use each member’s
district-wide discount. Consistent with
current Commission rules, we require
that for services used only by an
individual institution, the applicable
discount rate for the services will be
determined based on the applicable
district-wide discount rate for that
individual school or library, not the
consortium’s overall discount rate. We
realize that there will be shared services
that cannot, without substantial
difficulty, be identified with particular
users or be allocated directly to
particular entities. In those situations,
we will continue to require the state,
school district, or library system to
‘‘strive to ensure’’ that each school and
library in a consortium receives the full
benefit of the discount on shared
services to which it is entitled. Using
the district-wide average, should help
prevent consortia applications from
being held up due to changes in
building status, such as school closings
and consolidations, so long as there is
no indication of waste, fraud or abuse at
the invoicing stage. We realize,
however, that using a district-wide
average in place of the individual
consortium member discount still does
not provide a ‘‘weighted average’’ for
consortia members that better indicates
the discount to which members would
have been entitled if they had applied
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
for E-rate services on their own.
Therefore, we seek additional comment
on a proposal to use a weighted average
in the accompanying FNPRM.
2. Updating the Definition of ‘‘Rural’’
210. In keeping with our commitment
to ensuring that rural schools and
libraries are able to afford E-rate
supported services, we adopt the U.S.
Census Bureau (Census) definitions of
rural and urban for the purpose of
determining whether an E-rate applicant
qualifies for an additional rural
discount. In so doing, we adopt one of
the approaches the Commission
proposed in the E-rate Modernization
NPRM to modernizing the definitions of
‘‘rural’’ and ‘‘urban’’ in § 54.505(b)(3) of
our rules. While many commenters
supported an alternative proposal to
adopt the U.S. Department of
Education’s National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) definition
for determining whether a school is
rural, we find that using Census data
avoids several administrative challenges
that would arise were we to adopt the
NCES classification system. For
instance, commenters noted that there
can be delays in obtaining NCES codes
for new schools and some E-rate-eligible
entities do not have an NCES
designation. Using Census data ensures
that all E-rate-eligible schools and
libraries, even those without an NCES
code (or the library-equivalent FCES
code) can readily determine their urban/
rural status. We also note that the
Census definition fully overlaps with
the geography defined by NCES as
‘‘rural.’’
211. Our current definition of ‘‘rural’’
for purposes of the E-rate program is
outdated. By contrast, the Census data is
relatively new and, the urban
boundaries are adjusted annually to
remain current. The Census definition
classifies a particular location as rural or
urban based on population density and
geography, and other criteria involving
non-residential development. For the
2010 Census, the Census Bureau defined
urban areas as the densely settled core
of census tracts or blocks that met
minimum population density
requirements (50,000 people or more),
along with adjacent territories of at least
2,5000 people that link to the densely
settled core. ‘‘Rural’’ encompasses all
population, housing, and territory not
included within an urban area.
Therefore, beginning with funding year
2015, schools and libraries located in
areas that are not located in urban areas,
as defined by the most recent decennial
Census, will be considered rural for the
purposes of the E-rate program. We
direct USAC to post a tool on its Web
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
site that will allow schools and libraries
to obtain information regarding whether
they are classified as urban or rural
under the new definition. We note that
the Census Bureau already offers a tool
on its Web site that provides the urban/
rural status of any U.S. address.
212. In the E-rate Modernization
NPRM, we sought comment on how to
treat school districts and library systems
with a combination of rural and urban
schools and libraries. We conclude that
any school district or library system that
has a majority of schools or libraries in
a rural area that meets the statutory
definition of eligibility for E-rate
support will qualify for the additional
rural discount. This approach mirrors
the methodology used by NCES to
determine whether a school district is
urban or rural and is supported by
commenters in the record. This
approach is also consistent with the
method the FCC uses in the rural health
care program context. We further direct
USAC to take steps to minimize the
burden of reporting rural or urban
classification in conjunction with the
requirement to phase in all-electronic
filing over the next three years.1 For
example, USAC should ensure that the
FCC Form 471 allows applicants to
certify that the location of the schools or
libraries listed have not changed from
the previous year’s filing, or does not
require applicants to provide
classification data in cases where the
applicant’s status as ‘‘urban’’ or ‘‘rural’’
does not affect their discount rate.
3. Addressing the NSLP Community
Eligibility Provision
213. Consistent with our goal of
making the E-rate application process
and other E-rate processes fast, simple
and efficient, beginning with funding
year 2015, we will allow schools and
school districts that are participating in
the NSLP CEP to use the same approach
for determining their E-rate discount
rate as they use for determining their
NSLP reimbursement rate. Specifically,
schools utilizing the CEP shall calculate
their student eligibility for free or
reduced priced lunches by multiplying
the percentage of directly certified
students by the CEP national multiplier.
This number shall then be applied to
the discount matrix to determine a
school district’s discount for eligible Erate services. Libraries’ discount
percentages will continue to be based on
that of the public school district in
which they are physically located.
Schools participating in the CEP will
not be considered to have a greater than
100 percent student eligibility for
1 See
PO 00000
supra section VI.A.5.
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49187
purposes of determining the districtwide discount rate for E-rate services,
priority access to category two services,
or for any other E-rate purposes.
214. Traditionally, schools that
participate in the NSLP collect, on an
annual basis, individual eligibility
applications from each of their students
seeking free or reduced-priced lunches.
Schools use the NSLP eligibility data for
many other purposes, including
calculating an applicant’s E-rate
discount rate. However, schools
increasingly have the option of
participating in the CEP, which neither
requires nor permits schools to collect
individual student eligibility
information. A school is eligible for
community eligibility if at least 40
percent of its students are ‘‘directly
certified,’’ i.e., identified for free meals
through means other than household
applications (for example, students
directly certified as receiving benefits
from the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program). To compensate for
low-income families not reflected in the
direct certification data, schools apply a
standard, national factor (multiplier),
currently set at 1.6, to their identified
student population in order to
determine the total percentage of meals
for which they will be reimbursed by
the USDA. Schools are required to
renew their direct certification numbers
once every four years. If, during the
four-year cycle, a school’s percentage of
identified students increases, the school
may use the higher percentage in
determining USDA reimbursement. If
the percentage of identified students
decreases, the school may continue to
use the original percentage for the
remainder of the four-year eligibility
period.
215. We agree with commenters who
recommend that we allow schools and
school districts that participate in the
CEP to determine their discount rate for
E-rate by treating the number of directly
certified students multiplied by the
national multiplier as the percentage of
students eligible for NSLP. The record
demonstrates that the CEP provides an
estimate of the percentage of students
eligible for free and reduced-price meals
in participating schools comparable to
the poverty percentage that would be
obtained in a non-CEP school, and does
not unfairly inflate E-rate discounts on
eligible services. As E-Rate Central notes
in its comments, schools and school
districts electing the CEP already have
high low-income populations and most
are already at the current 90 percent
discount level. Thus, a multiplier that
raises the percentage of students eligible
for NSLP from, for example, an 81
percent to 89 percent level, would have
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49188
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
no effect on the school’s E-rate discount
rate.
216. Allowing schools and school
districts that participate in the CEP to
use their CEP data to determine
eligibility for E-rate support will also, as
the West Virginia Department of
Education explains, help to alleviate
confusion and additional burdens on
schools and school districts by
eliminating the need for additional
paperwork and administrative costs.
Moreover, by relying on a USDA change
intended in large part to reduce
paperwork and other burdens on
schools, this decision is consistent with
our other measures taken in this Report
and Order to alleviate applicant
administrative burdens. Additionally, as
the State E-rate Coordinators’ Alliance
notes, permitting the use of the CEP data
for E-rate discount eligibility provides a
predictable means of calculating the
discount level for new CEP schools.
217. We realize that the USDA has the
statutory authority to change the
multiplier to a number between 1.3 and
1.6, and to apply a different multiplier
for different schools or local educational
agencies beginning on or after July 1,
2014. To simplify schools’
administrative burden, we will require
CEP applicants to use the same
multiplier under the E-rate program for
determining their poverty level as
required by the USDA for their
reimbursement under the CEP. Unlike
applicants to the current E-rate program,
CEP applicants will not be required to
calculate their discount rate every year,
but for clarity and administrative ease,
shall use the calculation that they use
during the course of a four-year CEP
cycle. However, if an applicant adjusts
that calculation for purposes of the CEP,
it must also adjust it for purposes of Erate support.
4. Modifying the Requirements for
Using School-Wide Income Surveys
218. We also direct USAC to revise its
procedures to require schools and
school districts seeking to calculate
their E-rate discounts by using a schoolwide income survey to base their E-rate
discount rate only on the surveys they
actually collect beginning with funding
year 2015. Under the E-rate program,
instead of using NSLP data, schools and
school districts can choose to use a
federally approved alternative
mechanism, such as a survey, as a proxy
for poverty when calculating E-rate
support. Until now, a school using a
school-wide income survey needed to
collect surveys from at least 50 percent
of its students. It could then calculate
the percentage of NSLP-eligible students
from the returned surveys, and project
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
that percentage of eligibility for the
entire school population, for purposes
of determining its discount rate under
the E-rate program. We agree with New
Hope that allowing schools to use an
alternative method for determining
eligibility is essential. However, we are
concerned that permitting schools to
project the number of NSLP-eligible
students may provide an artificially
higher eligibility percentage. Therefore,
in order to help protect against
incentives to artificially inflate
eligibility percentages, beginning with
funding year 2015, schools electing to
use a school wide income survey to
determine the number of students
eligible for NSLP must calculate their
discount based only the surveys
returned by their students that
demonstrate that those students would
qualify for participation in the free and
reduced school lunch program to
determine the school’s discount level.
For example, a school with 100 students
that distributes and collects 60 surveys
showing that 52 students meet the
eligibility criteria for the free and
reduced lunch program would be
considered to have a 52 percent
eligibility percentage and therefore
qualify for an 80 percent discount rate.
219. We considered the proposal
offered by the Alaska Department of
Education & Early Development to allow
projections based on a 75 percent return
rate. We agree that would be more
accurate than the current 50 percent
return rate. But, on balance, we find that
it is more equitable to base the discount
rate for schools that conduct surveys on
the actual number of students whose
survey responses demonstrate that they
meet the NSLP criteria. We thus direct
USAC to amend its procedures to
require actual survey results for
determining a school’s NSLP-eligibility
from the surveys. We also take this
opportunity to remind applicants that,
upon request from any representative
(including any auditor) appointed by a
state education department, USAC, the
Commission, or any local, state or
federal agency with jurisdiction over the
entity, they are required to provide
copies of all returned surveys
supporting their discount eligibility.
C. Simplifying the Invoicing and
Disbursement Processes
220. Consistent with our goal of
reducing the administrative burdens on
applicants and service providers, we
take several measures related to the
invoicing process to simplify and
expedite funding disbursement. First,
we revise our rules to allow an
applicant that pays the full cost of the
E-rate supported services to a service
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provider to receive direct
reimbursement from USAC. Second, we
adopt rules codifying USAC’s existing
invoice filing deadline, while allowing
applicants to request and automatically
receive a single one-time 120-day
extension of the invoicing deadline.
Taken together, these modifications will
yield an invoicing process that is
simpler and clearer, while still
providing protections against waste,
fraud, and abuse.
1. Allowing Direct Invoicing
221. In response to widespread
support in the comments, we revise
§§ 54.504 and 54.514 of our rules to
allow an applicant that pays the full
cost of the E-rate supported services to
a service provider to receive direct
reimbursement from USAC, beginning
with funding year 2016. We agree with
the commenters who argue this change
would improve the administrative
process by eliminating unnecessary
invoicing steps, which in turn would
speed disbursements to schools and
libraries. We also agree with applicants
and service providers who argue that
revising the invoicing process to allow
applicants to receive direct
reimbursement from USAC is a
common-sense approach to simplifying
the administration of the E-rate
program. Further, we agree with those
commenters who argue that providing
an option for reimbursing schools and
libraries that have paid upfront for Erate supported services is consistent
with section 254 of the Act. As the
courts have found, section 254 of the
Act gives the Commission broad
discretion in administering the E-rate
program. Nothing in the Act prevents
the payment of universal service funds
directly to applicants in the schools and
libraries program. The only requirement
in the Act regarding reimbursement is
that the service provider is made whole,
either through an offset against their
contribution obligations, or using the
Commission’s universal service
mechanism. We find that the revised
Billed Entity Reimbursement (BEAR)
process we adopt today provides
sufficient documentation to demonstrate
that the applicant has fully paid for the
requested services and is entitled to
direct reimbursement from USAC,
thereby satisfying Congress’s statutory
requirement.
222. Under the current E-rate
program’s Billed Entity Applicant
Reimbursement (BEAR) process, if an
applicant agrees to pay its service
provider in full before USAC has
reimbursed the provider for E-rate
supported services, the applicant must
submit an FCC Form 472 (BEAR form)
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
to USAC but only after getting approval
from the service provider. After making
a funding commitment and receiving
invoices for eligible services, USAC will
then process payments to the service
provider, which in turn passes funds
through to the applicant. The BEAR
process requires significant
coordination between the applicant and
service provider for the applicant to
receive payment. If a service provider is
unable to process a BEAR form because,
for example, the service provider has
gone out of business or has filed for
bankruptcy protection prior to the
applicant submitting the BEAR form,
another service provider (the Good
Samaritan) can agree to serve as the
conduit and receive payment from
USAC for purposes of passing the
payment through to the applicant. By
removing the requirement that E-rate
funds pass through the service provider
to the applicant, we remove the need for
a Good Samaritan procedure.
223. This change we adopt today will
only affect applicants that avail
themselves of the BEAR process and
elect to pay the entire cost of the
discounted service in advance of
USAC’s reimbursement. Some
commenters express concern that
applicants should continue to have the
option of the SPI process, paying only
their portion of the price of eligible
services and requiring the service
provider to wait for payment from
USAC for the remaining portion of the
price of the eligible services. We take
this opportunity to reiterate that E-rate
applicants continue to have the option
of electing BEAR or SPI reimbursement.
Thus, when the applicant pays only the
discounted cost of the services directly
to the service provider through the SPI
process, the service provider will
continue to file a SPI form with USAC
to receive reimbursement.
224. Under the revised BEAR process
we adopt today, an applicant filing an
FCC Form 471 and selecting
reimbursement through the BEAR
process will be required to have on file
with USAC current and accurate
information concerning where payments
should be sent. In accordance with the
Debt Collection Improvement Act of
1996 (DCIA), all universal service
disbursements must be made by
electronic funds transfer. Accordingly,
schools and libraries that choose to
utilize the BEAR process must provide
USAC with bank account information
from a bank that can accept electronic
transfers of money. We expect there will
be additional information that USAC
will also need to process payment to
applicants, and we direct the Bureau
and OMD to work with USAC to collect
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
from applicants that use the new BEAR
process all the information USAC will
need to process such payments while
protecting the integrity of the program.
Further, for purposes of program
integrity, payments will not be made to
consultants, but only directly to schools
or libraries.
225. We direct the Bureau and OMD
to work with USAC to implement the
new direct reimbursement process. We
recognize that the current FCC Form 472
requires a service provider to certify
that: (1) It must remit the discount
amount authorized by the fund
administrator to the Billed Entity
Applicant; (2) it must remit payment of
the approved discount amount to the
Billed Entity Applicant; and (3) it is in
compliance with the rules and orders
governing the schools and libraries
universal service support program.
Because service providers will no longer
serve as a pass-through for payment,
they will not be required to approve
every FCC Form 472. However, the
service provider certifications on the
current FCC Form 472 are crucial for
protecting the program against waste,
fraud and abuse. We therefore revise
§ 54.504(f) of our rules by adding a
paragraph requiring each service
provider to certify on the FCC Form 473
that the service provider has complied
with the E-rate invoicing rules and
regulations. Specifically, the service
provider will be required to certify that
the bills or invoices that it provides to
applicants are accurate, and that the
services it provides are eligible for Erate support.
2. Adopting Invoicing Deadlines
226. We also codify USAC’s existing
invoice filing deadline to allow
applicants to request and automatically
receive a single one-time 120-day
extension of the invoicing deadline.
Codifying the invoicing deadline will
provide certainty to applicants and
service providers. Providing certainty
on invoicing deadlines will also allow
USAC to de-obligate committed funds
immediately after the invoicing
deadline has passed, providing
increased certainty about how much
funding is available to be carried
forward in future funding years. The
invoice deadline extension rule will be
effective beginning in funding year
2014.
227. As the Commission has
explained, filing deadlines are necessary
for the efficient administration of the Erate program. We agree with
commenters that the current invoice
deadline—the latter of 120 days after the
last day to receive service, or the date
of the FCC Form 486 notification
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49189
letter—provides the right balance
between the need for efficient
administration of the program, and the
need to ensure that applicants and
service providers have sufficient time to
finish their own invoicing processes.
We also agree that codifying the existing
deadline provides certainty to program
participants, while generally providing
sufficient flexibility based on an
applicant’s or service provider’s specific
circumstances.
228. At the same time, we agree with
commenters that there may be
circumstances beyond some applicants’
or service providers’ control that could
prevent them from meeting the 120-day
invoice filing deadline. Therefore, we
adopt a rule allowing applicants to seek
and receive from USAC a single onetime invoicing extension for any given
funding request, provided the extension
request is made no later than what
would otherwise be the deadline for
submitting invoices: The latter of 120
days after the last day to receive service,
or the date of the FCC Form 486
notification letter. By adopting such a
rule, we eliminate the need for
applicants and service providers to
identify a reason for the requested
extension and the need for USAC to
determine whether such timely requests
meet certain criteria, which will ease
the administrative burden of invoice
extension requests on USAC. In the
interest of efficient program
administration, USAC shall grant no
other invoicing deadline extensions.
Moreover, in considering waivers of our
new invoicing rules, we find that it is
generally not in the public interest to
waive our invoicing rules, and therefore
the Bureau should grant waivers of
those rules in extraordinary
circumstances.
229. In light of our codification of the
invoice deadline, we direct USAC,
working with OMD, to determine the
appropriate de-obligation date for funds
against which an invoice has not been
received for a particular funding year,
taking into account the existence of
pending appeals, holds, investigations,
and other matters. Our goal is to have
USAC establish, working with OMD, a
date on which the bulk of undisbursed
funds from a given funding year can be
de-obligated. By de-obligating those
funding commitments, USAC will have
greater certainty with respect to the
amount of funds from past funding
years that can be carried forward for
future requests.
230. With respect to appeals or
requests to USAC or the Commission
seeking permission to submit invoices
after USAC’s invoicing deadline for
earlier funding years, we direct USAC
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49190
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
and the Bureau to consider whether
such requests were made in good faith
and within a reasonable time period
after the services were provided or
whether other extraordinary
circumstances exist that support such a
request. In the Canon-McMillan Order,
the Bureau established a precedent of
granting relief to petitioners
demonstrating good faith in complying
with the invoicing deadline despite
submitting very late invoices. At the
same time the Bureau recognized that
invoice filing deadlines are necessary
for the efficient administration of the Erate program and that as schools and
libraries continue to participate in the Erate program, participants should
‘‘become more experienced with the
invoice requirements of the program.’’
Until now, USAC had allowed
unlimited invoice extensions under
certain circumstances, and the Bureau,
acting on delegated authority, has been
generous when deciding invoicing
deadline appeals. As reflected in the
rules we adopt today, we find that while
USAC’s procedures were reasonable in
the past, firmer limits on invoicing
extensions are required at this time.
Therefore, with respect to invoicing
deadlines for earlier funding years,
absent extraordinary circumstances
justifying the failure to timely submit
invoices, we expect the Bureau and
USAC to deny any requests or appeals
seeking an invoicing deadline extension
of more than 12 months after the last
date to invoice.
D. Creating a Tribal Consultation,
Training, and Outreach Program
231. As part of our overall effort to
modernize the E-rate program, we take
several actions today to raise the profile
of the E-rate program and ensure that
Tribal schools and libraries are able to
participate effectively in the program.
Specifically, we commit to enhance the
Commission’s Tribal consultation,
training, and outreach, and we seek to
gain a better understanding of the
current state of connectivity among
Tribal schools and libraries to enable
the Commission to take steps that will
reduce the digital divide and promote
high-speed broadband connectivity to
Tribal lands.
232. The Commission recognizes the
historic federal trust relationship and
responsibilities it has with federally
recognized Tribal Nations. Accordingly,
we have a longstanding policy of
promoting Tribal self-sufficiency and
economic development and have
developed a record of helping to ensure
that Tribal Nations and those living on
Tribal lands obtain access to
communications services. It is well
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
documented that communities on Tribal
lands have historically had less access
to both basic and advanced forms of
telecommunications services than any
other segment of the U.S. population.
We recognize that a digital divide
persists and extends not only to
residents of Tribal lands, but also to
Tribal anchor institutions such as
schools and libraries located on Tribal
lands. Given the challenges many Tribal
Nations face in lacking access to even
basic services, we recognize the
important role of universal service
support and the E-rate program in
helping provide telecommunications
services to and on remote and
underserved Tribal lands. We thus take
these actions today to gain a better
understanding of the current state of
connectivity among Tribal schools and
libraries and to empower Tribal Nations
to meet the high-speed broadband needs
of their schools and libraries.
233. Consultation. We find that more
extensive government-to-government
consultation with Tribal Nations is
necessary to understand both the need
for E-rate support on Tribal lands and
how to successfully connect Tribal
schools and libraries with modern highspeed communications. One benefit of
consultation will be the opportunity to
collect better data on the connectivity
needs of Tribal schools and libraries.
While some data was provided in
response to the E-rate Modernization
NPRM, we need to know much more
about connectivity and the use of E-rate
support on Tribal lands. In particular,
we recognize the need for data on how
E-rate has impacted connectivity on
Tribal lands to date, which Tribal
schools and libraries receive E-rate and
for what uses, what services are
available to those schools and libraries,
what the price structure is on Tribal
lands, what speeds are available and
needed on Tribal lands, and where
broadband infrastructure still is most
needed. We recognize that, without
Tribal-specific data, we cannot make the
most informed decisions for provision
of E-rate support to Tribal Nations.
234. Many Tribal commenters agree
and advocate for the need to collect data
to ensure that all schools and libraries,
including Tribal schools and libraries,
have affordable access to high-speed
broadband that supports digital learning
and educational mandates. NCAI also
advocates for coordination with certain
inter-Tribal organizations to collect the
necessary data. We therefore delegate
authority to the Office of Native Affairs
and Policy (ONAP), in coordination
with the Bureau and OMD, to conduct
government-to-government consultation
for the purpose of determining how best
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to gather data on current connectivity
levels and help the Commission better
determine the need for E-rate support
among Tribal schools and libraries. We
expect that ONAP’s experience in
working with Tribal Nations will inform
their decisions on how best to conduct
this consultation, in coordination with
the Bureau and OMD. Our hope is that,
by gaining a better understanding of the
current state of connectivity among
Tribal schools and libraries, we will be
in a better position to more effectively
meet the high-speed broadband needs of
the Native Nations of the United States.
235. Training. We find that training
tailored to the specific and often unique
needs of Tribal schools and libraries is
necessary to ensure that Tribal Nations
are informed and empowered to
participate fully in the E-rate program.
In response to several Tribal-specific
inquiries in the E-rate Modernization
NPRM, commenters stressed the need to
adopt E-rate program reforms that serve
to increase access to high-speed
broadband technologies for Tribal lands,
specifically Tribal anchor institutions,
and encouraged both rule changes and
administrative changes. For example,
NNTRC requested Tribal-specific
training and outreach to ensure that
Tribal schools and libraries are aware of
the E-rate program and have at least a
basic understanding of the E-rate
process, services, and eligibility, all to
ensure that Tribal Nations have equal
access to participation in the E-rate
program. The Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation stated that Tribal
Nations are unable to fully benefit from
the E-rate program due to a lack of
available training on the program.
Further, a 2011 study of Tribal libraries
by the Association of Tribal Archives,
Libraries, and Museums (ATALM)
found that the top three barriers to
Tribal library participation in the E-rate
program are lack of awareness of the
program, uncertainty about eligibility,
and a complicated application process.
This study found that, while 46 percent
of Tribal libraries are the only source of
free public Internet access in their
communities, less than 5 percent of
Tribal libraries benefit from the E-rate
program (as compared to 51 percent of
public libraries).
236. USAC currently conducts a series
of applicant trainings during the fall of
each year, usually located in large cities
and focused on issues of general
importance to E-rate applicants. As part
of the training we adopt today, we
envision that ONAP, in coordination
with USAC, would help provide E-rate
specific training to schools and libraries.
We therefore direct USAC to work with
ONAP to develop and provide Tribal-
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
specific E-rate training targeted to Tribal
schools and libraries. We direct ONAP,
in consultation with the Bureau and
OMD to advise USAC on the most
appropriate timing and mechanism to
provide such training, outreach, and
materials to Tribal schools and libraries.
We also direct ONAP to coordinate with
USAC to incorporate and distribute
USAC E-rate training materials when
mobilizing the Native Learning Lab.
237. Outreach. In conjunction with
the training described, we direct USAC,
in close coordination with and under
the guidance of ONAP, the Bureau, and
OMD, to create a formal Tribal liaison
at USAC to assist with Tribal-specific
outreach, training, and assistance. We
expect that USAC’s Tribal liaison will
coordinate closely with ONAP, the
Bureau, and OMD on all Tribal training
initiatives. The Tribal liaison’s
responsibilities will require direct
communication with Tribal schools and
libraries throughout the E-rate process
and will include helping to conduct and
coordinate Tribal-specific trainings and
training materials, initiating and
responding to Tribal ‘‘Helping
Applicants To Succeed’’ requests and
visits, fielding questions from Tribal
schools and libraries regarding the Erate program and process, and attending
national and regional Tribal conferences
or meetings where Tribal school and
libraries are present. The creation of this
position at USAC and the required
coordination with ONAP, the Bureau,
and OMD, will further our goal of
ensuring that Tribal schools and
libraries can participate fully and
effectively in the E-rate program.
E. Requiring Filing of Appeals With
USAC
238. Consistent with our goal of
streamlining the administration of the Erate program and improving the E-rate
appeals process, we revise § 54.719 of
our rules to require parties aggrieved by
an action taken by a division of USAC,
including the Schools and Libraries
Division, to first seek review of that
decision by USAC before filing an
appeal with the Commission. The
standards for evaluating the merits of
these appeals will be unchanged and
affected parties will still have the right
to seek Commission review of such
decisions, as provided in the
Commission’s rules. This rule change
will become effective 30 days after the
publication of this Report and Order in
the Federal Register.
239. Currently, any party may seek
Commission review of an action taken
by USAC without first seeking review of
that decision by USAC. One result of the
current system is a growing number of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
E-rate appeals with the Commission.
While we have made a concerted effort
to reduce the backlog of appeals, a
backlog remains and we continue to
receive numerous appeals on a monthly
basis. The appeals backlog is further
exacerbated by the fact that aggrieved
parties often decline to seek review from
USAC and appeal directly to the
Commission.
240. We find that requiring parties to
first file appeals of USAC decisions with
USAC itself before seeking Commission
review will improve efficiency in the
appeals process. It will reduce the
number of appeals coming to the
Commission, and allow USAC an initial
opportunity to correct any of its own
errors, and to receive and review
additional information provided by
aggrieved parties without having to
involve the Commission staff. We
remind parties filing an appeal with
USAC to follow USAC’s appeals
guidelines and provide USAC with all
relevant information and documentation
necessary for USAC to make an
informed decision on an appeal. USAC
cannot waive our rules; therefore parties
seeking only a waiver of our rules are
not governed by this requirement, but
instead must seek relief directly from
the Commission or the Bureau.
F. Directing USAC To Adopt Additional
Measures To Improve the
Administration of the E-Rate Program
241. We adopt a number of additional
measures to ease the burden upon
applicants, expedite commitments, and
ensure that all applicants receive
complete and timely information to help
inform their decisions regarding E-rate
purchases. In particular, we adopt a
specific application review and funding
commitment target for all category one
funding requests as a performance
measure in evaluating our progress
towards this goal; continue to work on
modernizing USAC’s E-rate Information
Technology (IT) systems; require the
publishing of all non-confidential E-rate
data in open, electronic formats; and
direct USAC to make its
communications simpler and clearer so
that applicants and service providers
will have no difficulty understanding
the information and direction that
USAC provides them.
1. Speeding Review of Applications,
Commitment Decisions and Funding
Disbursements
242. Many of the rule revisions we
adopt today will help speed review of
applications, funding commitment
decisions and funding disbursements. In
this proceeding, we received many
comments complaining about the delay
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49191
in receiving funding commitments. We
recognize that those delays have real
and substantial impacts on schools and
libraries’ willingness and ability to
purchase high-speed broadband
services. USAC, working closely with
OMD, has already committed to
overhaul its application review process
for the current funding year 2014 and
the initial results are impressive. As
noted, by July 1, 2013, USAC had only
committed approximately $181 million
in support. By contrast, as of July 1,
2014, USAC has already committed
approximately $1.22 billion in support.
In 2013, USAC did not reach $1 billion
in commitments until October.
243. We applaud the work that USAC
and OMD have done in the last few
months. Building on that momentum,
we adopt a specific application review
and funding commitment target for all
funding requests as a performance
measure in evaluating our progress
toward meeting our goal of streamlining
the administrative process. We believe
that establishing a specific target will
help to hold USAC further accountable
for more quickly reviewing and issuing
category one funding commitments in
future funding years. We again remind
applicants that failure to timely respond
to requested information by USAC
could delay the issuance of a
commitment, and we therefore
encourage applicants to respond
expeditiously and completely to all
information and documentation
requests by USAC.
2. Modernizing USAC’s E-Rate
Information Technology Systems
244. We also direct USAC and OMD
to continue to work on modernizing
USAC’s E-rate IT systems. Numerous
commenters express frustration with
USAC’s E-rate IT systems, and
recommend that USAC create an online
portal with pre-populated information
for returning applicants and service
providers to reduce administrative
burden and errors, and to provide
applicants and service providers with
easy access to historic information as
well as information about the status of
their funding and invoice requests.
245. OMD and the Bureau have
already begun the process of working
with USAC to modernize its E-rate IT
systems. We recognize that this is a
long-term project. We therefore direct
OMD and the Bureau to continue
USAC’s IT modernization work, with a
focus on easing the administrative
burdens on E-rate applicants and service
providers, while protecting against
waste, fraud and abuse, and on
collecting high-quality data that will
assist us in measuring our progress
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49192
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
towards the goals we adopt today. We
note that measuring progress towards
our goals, particularly the first two
goals, will require USAC to collect a
wealth of data from applicants and
service providers in a manner that will
allow us the flexibility to manipulate
and analyze that data in a variety of
ways.
3. Requiring Open and Accessible ERate Data
246. We direct USAC to timely
publish through electronic means all
non-confidential E-rate data in open,
standardized, electronic formats,
consistent with the principles of the
Office of Management and Budget’s
(OMB’s) Open Data Policy. USAC must
provide the public with the ability to
easily view and download nonconfidential E-rate data, for both
individual datasets and aggregate data.
We further direct USAC to design open
and accessible data solutions in a
modular format to allow extensibility
and agile development, such as
providing for the use of application
programming interfaces (APIs) where
appropriate and releasing the code, as
open source code, where feasible.
USAC’s solutions must be accessible to
people with disabilities, as is required
for federal agency information
technology. The solutions must also, on
a going-forward basis, incorporate
international standards and best
practices for security and privacy
controls.
247. The record supports USAC
releasing E-rate data in as open a
manner as possible so that the schools
and libraries that receive support from
the program and their associated service
providers can track the status of their Erate applications and requests for
reimbursement and so that they and the
public at large can benefit from greater
program transparency and public
accountability. Making non-confidential
E-rate data open and accessible will
allow members of the public to develop
new and innovative methods to analyze
E-rate data, which will benefit all
stakeholders, including this
Commission as we continue to improve
the program. Releasing E-rate data in
this manner should also enable greater
integration with other datasets such as
those maintained by NCES and those
maintained by IMLS. This integration
will create opportunities for new and
innovative analyses about connectivity
to and within our nation’s schools and
libraries.
4. Adopting Plain Language Review
248. We are concerned that many of
USAC’s standard communications are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
excessively lengthy and difficult to
understand. Because the E-rate program
has a wide range of large and small
stakeholders, USAC should be
particularly careful to communicate in a
simple, direct, and user-friendly
manner. Plain language is an essential
tool for communicating information
effectively to the public about decisions
and benefits. We therefore direct USAC
to work with OMD to implement a full
review and revision, as appropriate, of
USAC’s most commonly used
correspondence using plain language,
before the beginning of funding year
2016. We find that this review and the
improvement to USAC’s
communications that result will reduce
applicant confusion and ensure parties
have the information necessary to
comply with or appeal USAC’s
decisions. These requirements will be
effective beginning in funding year
2015.
documents can dramatically reduce
these costs. We therefore strongly
encourage schools, libraries, consortia,
and service providers to take advantage
of digital storage mechanisms. As the
Commission did in both the USF/ICC
Transformation Order and FNPRM, 76
FR 78384, December 16, 2011, and
Lifeline Reform Order, 77 FR 12784,
March 2, 2012, we conclude that the
benefits to the integrity of the program
outweigh the burdens of extending our
document retention rules to 10 years.
Our action thus ensures greater
consistency across the various universal
service programs.
251. We also modify § 54.516 of our
rules to refer to ‘‘schools, libraries and
consortia’’ rather than just ‘‘schools and
libraries,’’ thereby providing clarity that
all applicants (as well as all service
providers) are required to comply with
our document retention and other
auditing rules.
G. Protecting Against Waste Fraud and
Abuse
249. While we seek to modernize the
E-rate program and ease the burdens
upon applicants and service providers,
we are extremely mindful of our
commitment to ensuring the program’s
integrity by protecting against waste,
fraud and abuse. We believe that proper
documentation is crucial for
demonstrating applicant and vendor
compliance with E-rate rules, and for
uncovering waste, fraud and abuse in
the program, whether through
compliance audits or investigations.
Therefore, we revise our document
retention requirements and compliance
procedures and clarify that applicants
must permit inspectors on their
premises as described below.
2. Allowing Access for Inspections
1. Extending the E-Rate Document
Retention Requirements
250. We revise § 54.516(a) of our rules
to extend the document retention period
from five to 10 years after the latter of
the last day of the applicable funding
year, or the service delivery deadline for
the funding request. As the Commission
explained in the E-rate Modernization
NPRM, the current five year document
retention requirement is not adequate
for purposes of litigation under the
False Claims Act (FCA), which can
involve conduct that occurred
substantially more than five years prior
to the filing of a complaint. We
recognize commenters’ concerns that
extending the mandatory document
retention period to 10 years may create
additional administrative burdens and
incur document storage costs. However,
we agree with the San Jacinto School
District that electronic storage of
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
252. To support E-rate compliance
audits and enforcement investigations,
we also revise § 54.516 to clarify that Erate applicants and service providers
must permit auditors, investigators,
attorneys or any other person appointed
by a state education department, USAC,
the Commission or any local, state or
federal agency with jurisdiction over the
entity to enter their premises to conduct
E-rate compliance inspections. Allowing
auditors and investigative personnel to
inspect an applicant’s premises is
necessary to ensure that the applicant is
in compliance with E-rate rules. The list
of entities entitled to appoint
representatives to enter the premises of
an applicant or service provider
parallels the list of entities entitled to
seek production of records from
applicants and service providers.
VI. Delegation To Revise Rules
253. Given the complexities
associated with modernizing the E-rate
program, modifying our rules, and the
other programmatic changes we adopt
in this Report and Order, we delegate
authority to the Bureau to make any
further rule revisions as necessary to
ensure the changes to the program
adopted in this Report and Order are
reflected in our rules. This includes
correcting any conflicts between new
and/or revised rules and existing rules
as well as addressing an omissions or
oversights. If any such rule changes are
warranted the Bureau shall be
responsible for such change. We note
that any entity that disagrees with a rule
change made on delegated authority
will have the opportunity to file an
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Application for Review by the full
Commission.
VII. Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
254. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) included an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies
and rules proposed in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM in WC Docket No.
13–184. The Commission sought written
public comment on the proposals in the
E-rate Modernization NPRM, including
comment on the IRFA. This Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
conforms to the RFA.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rule
255. The Commission is required by
section 254 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 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.
256. In July 2013, the Commission
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
seeking public comment on proposals to
update the E-rate program to focus on
21st Century broadband needs of
schools and libraries. Then, in February
2014, the Wireline Competition Bureau
issued a Public Notice seeking focused
comment on issues raised in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM. In this Report
and Order, the Commission adopts a
number of the proposals put forward in
the E-rate Modernization NPRM and
discussed in the E-rate Modernization
Public Notice.
257. This Report and Order continues
the Commission’s efforts to promote
broadband access for schools and
libraries. In it, we adopt goals and
measures for the E-rate program to (1)
ensure affordable access to high-speed
broadband sufficient to support digital
learning in schools and robust
connectivity for all libraries, (2)
maximize the cost-effectiveness of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
spending for E-rate supported
purchases, and (3) make the E-rate
application process and other E-rate
processes fast, simple and efficient.
258. The rule changes we adopt
support these goals and fall into three
conceptual categories. First, we ensure
affordable access to high-speed
broadband sufficient to support digital
learning in schools and robust
connectivity for all libraries by
providing more reliable and equitable
funding for broadband without schools
and libraries and by phasing down
support for legacy services. Second, we
maximize the cost-effectiveness of
spending for E-rate supported purchases
by increasing transparency in the
purchasing process, encouraging
consortium purchasing, and amending
the lowest corresponding price (LCP)
rule. Third, we make the E-rate
application process and other E-rate
processes fast, simple, and efficient by
simplifying the application process;
simplifying discount rate calculations;
simplifying the invoicing and
disbursement process; requiring filing of
appeals with USAC; directing USAC to
adopt additional measures to streamline
the administration of the E-rate
program; and protecting against waste,
fraud, and abuse.
C. Summary of Significant Issues Raised
by Public Comments to the IRFA
259. No comments specifically
addressed the IRFA.
D. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules May Apply
260. 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 28.2
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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49193
261. 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.
262. Small entities potentially
affected by the proposals herein include
eligible schools and libraries and the
eligible service providers offering them
discounted services.
263. 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.
264. 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
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49194
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 1,307
incumbent carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of local
exchange services. Of these 1,307
carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500
or fewer employees and 301 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
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.
265. 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 2010 Trends Report, 359
companies reported that they were
engaged in the provision of
interexchange services. Of these 300
IXCs, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or
few employees and 42 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of interexchange services are
small businesses.
266. 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 2010
Trends Report, 1,442 CAPs and
competitive local exchange carriers
(competitive LECs) reported that they
were engaged in the provision of
competitive local exchange services. Of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
these 1,442 CAPs and competitive LECs,
an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 186 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of competitive exchange
services are small businesses.
267. 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.
268. 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 2010 Trends Report,
413 carriers reported that they were
engaged in wireless telephony. Of these,
an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. We have estimated
that 261 of these are small under the
SBA small business size standard.
269. 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 nowsuperseded 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
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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.
270. In addition, in the Paging Second
Report and Order, 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 thirtytwo 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.
271. Currently, there are
approximately 74,000 Common Carrier
Paging licenses. According to the most
recent Trends in Telephone Service, 291
carriers reported that they were engaged
in the provision of ‘‘paging and
messaging’’ services. Of these, an
estimated 289 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.
272. 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
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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.
273. Vendors of Internal Connections:
Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing.
The Census Bureau defines this category
as follows: ‘‘This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing wire telephone and data
communications equipment. These
products may be standalone or boardlevel 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.
274. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
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.
275. 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
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 for Small Entities
276. Several of our rule changes will
result in additional recordkeeping
requirements for small entities. For all
of those rule changes, we have
determined that the benefit the rule
change will bring for the program
outweighs the burden of the increased
recordkeeping requirement. Other rule
changes decrease recordkeeping
requirements for small entities.
1. Increase in Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
277. Compliance burdens. All of the
rules we implement impose some
burden on small entities by requiring
them to become familiar with the new
rule to comply with it. For many new
rules, such as those codifying invoicing
deadlines, increasing price
transparency, phasing down support for
voice services, eliminating support for
telephone features, and reducing the
maximum discount rate for internal
connections, the burden of becoming
familiar with the new rule in order to
comply with it is the only burden the
rule imposes.
278. Connectivity metrics. The metrics
we adopt will require applicants to
provide data on connectivity, demand
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49195
costs and LAN/WLAN capacity. The
benefit collection of this data will
provide us by giving us a better
understanding of how the E-rate
program is accomplishing its goals
outweighs the burden it will impose on
small entities.
279. Internal connections funding.
Our rule change to provide more
funding for internal connections will
increase recordkeeping burdens on
small entities who previously did not
apply for funding for internal
connections because funding was not
available to them. The benefit of
receiving funding for internal
connections clearly outweighs the
burden on applying for this funding.
280. Preferred master contracts. Our
rule change to allow the Bureau to
designate preferred master contracts that
applicants would be required to include
in their bid evaluations even if the
master contract was not submitted as a
bid would increase recordkeeping
requirements on small entities because
it would require many small E-rate
applicants to consider an additional bid
in their evaluations. The significant
savings the Fund and applicants would
realize from including preferred master
contracts in bid evaluations justifies this
added burden.
281. Price transparency. We allow
applicants to opt out of public
disclosure by USAC of their E-rate
pricing data if such disclosure would
violate a state law, local rule, or an
existing long-term contract by certifying
and citing to the specific statute, rule or
other restriction barring publication of
pricing data. Making this certification
will increase recordkeeping
requirements for those applicants who
wish to opt out, but allowing the
certification is necessary to ensure
consistency between E-rate rules and
state and local laws.
282. Determining rurality for school
districts. Requiring applicants to
determine whether a majority of their
schools are in rural areas increases
recordkeeping requirements. The benefit
to rural applicants of receiving an
additional discount justifies this
additional burden.
283. Document retention. Extending
the retention period from five to 10
years after the latter of the last day of
the applicable funding year, or the last
day of delivery of services for that
funding year increases recordkeeping
requirements and costs for E-rate
recipients and service providers. Our
interest in combatting waste, fraud and
abuse by litigating matters under the
False Claims Act, which can involve
conduct that relates back substantially
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49196
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
more than five years, justifies this
additional burden.
284. Electronic filing. Although filing
electronically is easier than filing on
paper for most applicants, we recognize
that requiring electronic filing may
impose additional burdens for
applicants who are unfamiliar with the
electronic filing process. Nonetheless,
the efficiencies for USAC that requiring
electronic filing creates outweigh the
burden on applicants.
285. Maximum term for multi-year
contracts. Our requirement that
contracts for E-rate supported services
not exceed five years, which an
exception permitting contracts for
deployment of new fiber to schools or
libraries to not exceed ten years, could
increase reporting requirements for
some applicants by requiring them to
negotiate contracts more frequently than
they otherwise would. Our interest in
promoting cost-effective purchasing
justifies this additional burden.
286. Requiring filing of appeals with
USAC. Requiring applicants to first file
appeals with USAC before appealing
decision to the Commission could
increase recordkeeping requirements by
requiring applicants who planned to
appeal directly to the Commission to
file an additional appeal before doing
so. The benefit of reducing the
Commission’s E-rate appeal backlog
outweighs this burden.
287. Changes to ESL. We recognize
that the changes to focus the category
two Eligible Services List (ESL) on
broadband may require applicants to
cost allocate newly-ineligible services.
E-rate recipients have always been
required to cost allocate ineligible
components. In many instances, cost
allocation should not be difficult
because these services appear on
separate line items on bills. Even when
ineligible services do not appear as
separate line items on bills, the savings
to the program from these changes to the
ESL outweighs the administrative
burden of cost allocation for program
participants.
2. Decrease in Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
288. Focusing support on broadband.
Limiting internal connections support to
routers, switches, wireless access
points, internal cabling, wireless
controller systems, data protection
services, and the software supporting
each of these components used to
distribute high-speed broadband
throughout school buildings and
libraries will decrease recordkeeping
requirements for small entities because
they will no longer go through the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
application process for services that
have been made ineligible.
289. Simplified application process
for multi-year contracts. Our new
procedure for funding commitments for
multi-year contracts for priority one
services that is no longer than five years
will alleviate reporting burdens on
small entities because, in many
circumstances, applicants will only be
required to submit an FCC Form 471 for
the first year of a multi-year contract.
For subsequent years, applicants will be
permitted to use a streamlined
application process.
290. Eliminating technology plan
requirements. We eliminate the
technology plan requirement for
applicants seeking category two
services, which will decrease
recordkeeping requirements.
291. Exempting certain low-dollar
purchases from competitive bidding
rules. The exemption to our competitive
bidding rules that allows E-rate
applicants to purchase certain businessclass Internet access reduces
recordkeeping requirements related to
the competitive bidding process.
Although the requirement that
applicants certify that they have
purchased services that are eligible for
an exemption imposes a minimal
recordkeeping requirement, the overall
effect of the rule change is a reduction
in recordkeeping requirements.
292. Preferred master contracts. We
also permit applicants to take services
on a preferred master contract
designated by the Bureau without filing
an FCC Form 470. This reduces the
burdens associated with filing an FCC
Form 470 and conducting a bid
evaluation.
293. District-wide discount rates. The
requirement that applicants use a
district-wide data to determine their
discount rates will reduce reporting
requirements because districts will no
longer have to perform a discount rate
calculation for each school within a
district.
294. Invoicing. Applicants who
submit a Billed Entity Application for
Reimbursement (BEAR) Form may now
receive reimbursement directly from
USAC, rather than having the service
provider serve as an intermediary. This
alleviates reporting requirements on the
service provider.
295. Plain language review. The plain
language review of USAC’s standard
forms that we order make it easier for
small entities to comply with our rules
by reducing applicant confusion and
ensuring that entities have the
information necessary to comply with
our rules.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3. Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
296. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements
under the rule for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.’’
297. This rulemaking could impose
minimal additional burdens on small
entities. We considered alternatives to
the rulemaking changes that increase
projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements for small
entities.
4. Alternatives Permitted
298. Electronic filing. To
accommodate applicants who have
insufficient connectivity or other
administrative resources to file
electronically with USAC, we permit an
exception to our electronic filing
requirement that allows those
applicants to file applicants and other
documents with USAC using paper.
299. Document retention. We
encourage applicants to take advantage
of electronic storage of documents to
mitigate the additional expense our
increase of the document retention
requirement from five to 10 years
imposes.
5. Alternatives Considered and Rejected
300. Connectivity metrics. The best
source for obtain the data we need for
connectivity metrics is applicants.
Although we could obtain this data from
service providers, it is less burdensome
for an applicant to provide connectivity
data for itself than it would be for a
service provider to furnish it for all of
its customers who receive E-rate
support.
F. Report to Congress
301. 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
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Report and Order and the FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will also be
published in the Federal Register.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
302. This Report and Order contains
new information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public,
and other Federal agencies are invited to
comment on the revised information
collection requirements contained in
this proceeding. In addition, we note
that pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, the Commission
previously sought specific comment on
how it might further reduce the
information collection burden on small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
H. Congressional Review Act
303. 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.
304. For additional information on
this proceeding, contact James Bachtell
at (202) 418–2694 or Kate Dumouchel at
(202) 418–1839 in the
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
VIII. Ordering Clauses
305. Accordingly, it is ordered, that
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1 through 4, 201 through 205,
254, 303(r), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151–154, 201–
205, 254, 303(r), and 403, and section
706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, 47 U.S.C. § 1302, this Report and
Order is Adopted effective September
18, 2014, except to the extent expressly
addressed below.
306. It is further ordered, that
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1 through 4, 201 through 205,
254, 303(r), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201–205,
254, 303(r), and 403, and section 706 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47
U.S.C. 1302, Part 54 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR part 54, is
Amended as set forth below, and such
rule amendments shall be effective
September 18, 2014 of the Report and
Order in the Federal Register, except for
§§ 54.502(b)(2) through (3) and (5),
54.503(c), 54.504(a) and (f), 54.507(d),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
54.514(a), 54.516(a) through (c), and
54.720(a), which are subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act and will
become effective upon announcement in
the Federal Register of OMB approval of
the subject information collection
requirements; and except for
amendments in §§ 54.500, 54.501(a)(1),
54.502(a), 54.507(a) through (c) and (e)
through (f), 54.516, and 54.570(b) and
(c), which shall become effective on July
1, 2015; and amendments in
§§ 54.504(f)(4) and (f)(5) and 54.514(c),
which shall become effective on July 1,
2016.
307. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs 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.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl D. Todd,
Deputy 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
Subpart A—General Information
1. The authority citation for part 54
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Sections 1, 4(i), 5, 201, 205,
214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
and section 706 of the Communications Act
of 1996, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403,
and 1302 unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 54.5 by revising the
definition of ‘‘Internet access’’ to read as
follows:
■
§ 54.5
Terms and definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Internet access. ‘‘Internet access’’
includes the following elements:
(1) The transmission of information as
common carriage; and
(2) The transmission of information as
part of a gateway to an information
service, when that transmission does
not involve the generation or alteration
of the content of information, but may
include data transmission, address
translation, protocol conversion, billing
management, introductory information
content, and navigational systems that
enable users to access information
services, and that do not affect the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49197
presentation of such information to
users.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart F—Universal Service Support
for Schools and Libraries
3. Amend § 54.500 by removing the
alphabetical paragraph designations and
adding in alphabetical order definitions
for ‘‘basic maintenance,’’ ‘‘consortium,’’
‘‘internal connections,’’ ‘‘managed
internal broadband services,’’ and
‘‘voice services’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 54.500
Terms and definitions.
Basic maintenance. A service is
eligible for support as a ‘‘basic
maintenance’’ 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 by E-rate 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.
*
*
*
*
*
Consortium. A ‘‘consortium’’ is any
local, statewide, regional, or interstate
cooperative association of schools and/
or libraries eligible for E-rate support
that seeks competitive bids for eligible
services or funding for eligible services
on behalf of some or all of its members.
Consortium may also include health
care providers eligible under subpart G,
and public sector (governmental)
entities, including, but not limited to,
state colleges and state universities,
state educational broadcasters, counties,
and municipalities, although such
entities are not eligible for support.
Eligible schools and libraries may not
join consortia with ineligible private
sector members unless the pre-discount
prices of any services that such
consortium receives are generally
tariffed rates.
*
*
*
*
*
Internal connections. A service is
eligible for support as a component of
an institution’s ‘‘internal connections’’
if such service is necessary to transport
or distribute broadband 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.
*
*
*
*
*
Managed internal broadband services.
A service is eligible for support as
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49198
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘managed internal broadband services’’
if provided by a third party for the
operation, management, and/or
monitoring of the eligible components
of a school or library local area network
(LAN) and wireless LAN.
*
*
*
*
*
Voice services. ‘‘Voice services’’
include local phone service, long
distance service, plain old telephone
service (POTS), radio loop, 800 service,
satellite telephone, shared telephone
service, Centrex, wireless telephone
service such as cellular, interconnected
voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), and
the circuit capacity dedicated to
providing voice services.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 54.501 by revising the
section heading and paragraph (a)(1), by
removing paragraph (c)(1), and by
redesignating paragraphs (c)(2) and (3)
as paragraphs (c)(1) and (2),
respectively.
The revisions read as follows:
§ 54.501
Eligible recipients.
(a) * * *
(1) Only schools meeting the statutory
definition of ‘‘elementary school’’ and
‘‘secondary school’’ as defined in
§ 54.500 of this subpart, and not
excluded under paragraphs (a)(2) or (3)
of this section shall be eligible for
discounts on telecommunications and
other supported services under this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Revise § 54.502 to read as follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
§ 54.502
Eligible services.
(a) Supported services. All supported
services are listed in the Eligible
Services List as updated annually in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section. The services in this subpart will
be supported 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. The supported services
fall within the following general
categories:
(1) Category one.
Telecommunications services,
telecommunications, and Internet
access, as defined in § 54.5 and
described in the Eligible Services List
are category one supported services.
(2) Category two. Internal
connections, basic maintenance and
managed internal broadband services as
defined in § 54.500 and described in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
Eligible Services List are category two
supported services.
(b) Funding years 2015 and 2016.
Libraries, schools, or school districts
with schools that receive funding for
category two services in funding years
2015 and/or 2016 shall be eligible for
support pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1)
through (6) of this section.
(1) Five-year budget. Each eligible
school or library shall be eligible for a
budgeted amount of support for category
two services over a five-year funding
cycle. Excluding support for internal
connections received prior to funding
year 2015, each school or library shall
be eligible for the total available budget
less any support received for category
two services in the prior four funding
years.
(2) School budget. Each eligible
school shall be eligible for support for
category two services up to a prediscount price of $150 per student over
a five-year funding cycle. Applicants
shall provide the student count per
school, calculated at the time that the
discount is calculated each funding
year. New schools may estimate the
number of students, but shall repay any
support provided in excess of the
maximum budget based on student
enrollment the following funding year.
(3) Library budget. Each eligible
library shall be eligible for support for
category two services, up to a prediscount price of $2.30 per square foot
over a five-year funding cycle. Libraries
shall provide the total area for all floors,
in square feet, of each library outlet
separately, including all areas enclosed
by the outer walls of the library outlet
and occupied by the library, including
those areas off-limits to the public.
(4) Funding floor. Each eligible school
and library will be eligible for support
for category two services up to at least
a pre-discount price of $9,200 over five
funding years.
(5) Requests. Applicants shall request
support for category two services for
each school or library based on the
number of students per school building
or square footage per library building.
Category two funding for a school or
library may not be used for another
school or library. If an applicant
requests less than the maximum budget
available for a school or library, the
applicant may request the remaining
balance in a school’s or library’s
category two budget in subsequent
funding years of a five year cycle. The
costs for category two services shared by
multiple eligible entities shall be
divided reasonably between each of the
entities for which support is sought in
that funding year.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(6) Non-instructional buildings.
Support is not available for category two
services provided to or within noninstructional school buildings or
separate library administrative buildings
unless those category two services are
essential for the effective transport of
information to or within one or more
instructional buildings of a school or
non-administrative library buildings, or
the Commission has found that the use
of those services meets the definition of
educational purpose, as defined in
§ 54.500. When applying for category
two support for eligible services to a
non-instructional school building or
library administrative building, the
applicant shall allocate the cost of
providing services to one or more of the
eligible school or library buildings that
benefit from those services being
provided.
(c) Funding year 2017 and beyond.
Absent further action from the
Commission, each eligible library or
school in a school district, which did
not receive funding for category two
services in funding years 2015 and/or
2016, shall be eligible for support for
category two 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 category two
services other than basic maintenance
services. If a school or library receives
category two 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.
Support is not available for category two
services provided to or within noninstructional school buildings or
separate library administrative buildings
unless those category two services are
essential for the effective transport of
information to or within one or more
instructional buildings of a school or
non-administrative library buildings, or
the Commission has found that the use
of those services meets the definition of
educational purpose, as defined in
§ 54.500.
(d) Eligible services list process. The
Administrator shall submit by March 30
of each year a draft list of services
eligible for support, based on the
Commission’s rules for the following
funding year. The Wireline Competition
Bureau will issue a Public Notice
seeking comment on the Administrator’s
proposed eligible services list. The final
list of services eligible for support will
be released at least 60 days prior to the
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
opening of the application filing
window for the following funding year.
■ 6. Amend § 54.503 by revising
paragraphs (c), (d)(2)(i), and (d)(4) and
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 54.503 Competitive bidding
requirements.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Posting of FCC Form 470. (1) An
eligible school, library, or consortium
that includes an eligible school or
library seeking bids for eligible services
under this subpart shall submit a
completed FCC Form 470 to the
Administrator to initiate the competitive
bidding process. The FCC Form 470 and
any request for proposal cited in the
FCC Form 470 shall include, at a
minimum, the following information, to
the extent applicable with respect to the
services requested:
(i) A list of specified services for
which the school, library, or consortium
requests bids; and
(ii) Sufficient information to enable
bidders to reasonably determine the
needs of the applicant.
(2) The FCC Form 470 shall be signed
by a person authorized to request bids
for eligible services for the eligible
school, library, or consortium, including
such entities.
(i) A person authorized to request bids
on behalf of the entities listed on an
FCC Form 470 shall certify under oath
that:
(A) The schools meet the statutory
definition of ‘‘elementary school’’ or
‘‘secondary school’’ as defined in
§ 54.500 of these rules, do not operate as
for-profit businesses, and do not have
endowments exceeding $50 million.
(B) The libraries or library consortia
eligible for assistance from a State
library administrative agency under the
Library Services and Technology Act of
1996 do not operate as for-profit
businesses and have budgets that are
completely separate from any school
(including, but not limited to,
elementary and secondary schools,
colleges, and universities).
(C) Support under this support
mechanism is conditional upon the
school(s) and library(ies) securing
access to all of the resources, including
computers, training, software,
maintenance, internal connections, and
electrical connections necessary to use
the services purchased effectively.
(ii) A person authorized to both
request bids and order services on
behalf of the entities listed on an FCC
Form 470 shall, in addition to making
the certifications listed in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section, certify under
oath that:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
(A) The services the school, library, or
consortium purchases at discounts will
be used primarily for educational
purposes and will not be sold, resold, or
transferred in consideration for money
or any other thing of value, except as
allowed by § 54.513.
(B) All bids submitted for eligible
products and services will be carefully
considered, with price being the
primary factor, and the bid selected will
be for the most cost-effective service
offering consistent with § 54.511.
(3) The Administrator shall post each
FCC Form 470 that it receives from an
eligible school, library, or consortium
that includes an eligible school or
library on its Web site designated for
this purpose.
(4) After posting on the
Administrator’s Web site an eligible
school, library, or consortium FCC Form
470, the Administrator shall send
confirmation of the posting to the entity
requesting service. That entity shall
then wait at least four weeks from the
date on which its description of services
is posted on the Administrator’s Web
site before making commitments with
the selected providers of services. The
confirmation from the Administrator
shall include the date after which the
requestor may sign a contract with its
chosen provider(s).
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The terms ‘‘school, library, or
consortium’’ include all individuals
who are on the governing boards of such
entities (such as members of a school
committee), and all employees, officers,
representatives, agents, consultants or
independent contractors of such entities
involved on behalf of such school,
library, or consortium with the Schools
and Libraries Program of the Universal
Service Fund (E-rate Program),
including individuals who prepare,
approve, sign or submit E-rate
applications, or other forms related to
the E-rate Program, or who prepare bids,
communicate or work with E-rate
service providers, E-rate consultants, or
with USAC, as well as any staff of such
entities responsible for monitoring
compliance with the E-rate Program;
and
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Any service provider may make
charitable donations to an eligible
school, library, or consortium that
includes an eligible school or library in
the support of its programs as long as
such contributions are not directly or
indirectly related to E-rate procurement
activities or decisions and are not given
by service providers to circumvent
competitive bidding and other E-rate
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49199
program rules, including those in
paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C) of this section,
requiring schools and libraries to pay
their own non-discount share for the
services they are purchasing.
(e) Exemption to competitive bidding
requirements. An applicant that seeks
support for commercially available
high-speed Internet access services for a
pre-discount price of $3,600 or less per
school or library annually is exempt
from the competitive bidding
requirements in paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section.
(1) Internet access, as defined in
§ 54.5, is eligible for this exemption
only if the purchased service offers at
least 100 Mbps downstream and 10
Mbps upstream.
(2) The Chief, Wireline Competition
Bureau, is delegated authority to lower
the annual cost of high-speed Internet
access services or raise the speed
threshold of broadband services eligible
for this competitive bidding exemption,
based on a determination of what rates
and speeds are commercially available
prior to the start of the funding year.
■ 7. Revise § 54.504 to read as follows:
§ 54.504
Requests for services.
(a) Filing of the FCC Form 471. An
eligible school, library, or consortium
that includes an eligible school or
library seeking to receive discounts for
eligible services under this subpart
shall, upon entering into a signed
contract or other legally binding
agreement for eligible services, submit a
completed FCC Form 471 to the
Administrator.
(1) The FCC Form 471 shall be signed
by the person authorized to order
eligible services for the eligible school,
library, or consortium and shall include
that person’s certification under oath
that:
(i) The schools meet the statutory
definition of ‘‘elementary school’’ or
‘‘secondary school’’ as defined in
§ 54.500 of this subpart, do not operate
as for-profit businesses, and do not have
endowments exceeding $50 million.
(ii) The libraries or library consortia
eligible for assistance from a State
library administrative agency under the
Library Services and Technology Act of
1996 do not operate as for-profit
businesses and whose budgets are
completely separate from any school
(including, but not limited to,
elementary and secondary schools,
colleges, and universities).
(iii) The entities listed on the FCC
Form 471 application have secured
access to all of the resources, including
computers, training, software,
maintenance, internal connections, and
electrical connections, necessary to
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49200
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
make effective use of the services
purchased, as well as to pay the
discounted charges for eligible services
from funds to which access has been
secured in the current funding year. The
billed entity will pay the non-discount
portion of the cost of the goods and
services to the service provider(s).
(iv) The entities listed on the FCC
Form 471 application have complied
with all applicable state and local laws
regarding procurement of services for
which support is being sought.
(v) The services the school, library, or
consortium purchases at discounts will
be used primarily for educational
purposes and will not be sold, resold, or
transferred in consideration for money
or any other thing of value, except as
allowed by § 54.513.
(vi) The entities listed in the
application have complied with all
program rules and acknowledge that
failure to do so may result in denial of
discount funding and/or recovery of
funding.
(vii) The applicant understands that
the discount level used for shared
services is conditional, for future years,
upon ensuring that the most
disadvantaged schools and libraries that
are treated as sharing in the service,
receive an appropriate share of benefits
from those services.
(viii) The applicant recognizes that it
may be audited pursuant to its
application, that it will retain for ten
years any and all worksheets and other
records relied upon to fill out its
application, and that, if audited, it will
make such records available to the
Administrator.
(ix) Except as exempted by
§ 54.503(e), all bids submitted to a
school, library, or consortium seeking
eligible services were carefully
considered and the most cost-effective
bid was selected in accordance with
§ 54.503 of this subpart, with price
being the primary factor considered, and
it is the most cost-effective means of
meeting educational needs and
technology goals.
(2) All pricing and technology
infrastructure information submitted as
part of an FCC Form 471 shall be treated
as public and non-confidential by the
Administrator unless the applicant
specifies a statute, rule, or other
restriction, such as a court order or an
existing contract limitation barring
public release of the information.
(i) Contracts and other agreements
executed after adoption of this rule may
not prohibit disclosure of pricing or
technology infrastructure information.
(ii) The exemption for existing
contract limitations shall not apply to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
voluntary extensions or renewals of
existing contracts.
(b) Mixed eligibility requests. If 30
percent or more of a request for
discounts made in an FCC Form 471 is
for ineligible services, the request shall
be denied in its entirety.
(c) Rate disputes. Schools, libraries,
and consortia including those entities,
and service providers may have
recourse to the Commission, regarding
interstate rates, and to state
commissions, regarding intrastate rates,
if they reasonably believe that the
lowest corresponding price is unfairly
high or low.
(1) Schools, libraries, and consortia
including those entities may request
lower rates if the rate offered by the
carrier does not represent the lowest
corresponding price.
(2) Service providers may request
higher rates if they can show that the
lowest corresponding price is not
compensatory, because the relevant
school, library, or consortium including
those entities is not similarly situated to
and subscribing to a similar set of
services to the customer paying the
lowest corresponding price.
(d) Service substitution. (1) The
Administrator shall grant a request by
an applicant to substitute a service or
product for one identified on its FCC
Form 471 where:
(i) The service or product has the
same functionality;
(ii) The substitution does not violate
any contract provisions or state or local
procurement laws;
(iii) The substitution does not result
in an increase in the percentage of
ineligible services or functions; and
(iv) The applicant certifies that the
requested change is within the scope of
the controlling FCC Form 470, including
any associated Requests for Proposal, for
the original services.
(2) In the event that a service
substitution results in a change in the
pre-discount price for the supported
service, support shall be based on the
lower of either the pre-discount price of
the service for which support was
originally requested or the pre-discount
price of the new, substituted service.
(3) For purposes of this rule, the two
categories of eligible services are not
deemed to have the same functionality
as one another.
(e) Mixed eligibility services. A
request for discounts for a product or
service that includes both eligible and
ineligible components must allocate the
cost of the contract to eligible and
ineligible components.
(1) Ineligible components. If a product
or service contains ineligible
components, costs must be allocated to
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the extent that a clear delineation can be
made between the eligible and ineligible
components. The delineation must have
a tangible basis, and the price for the
eligible portion must be the most costeffective means of receiving the eligible
service.
(2) Ancillary ineligible components. If
a product or service contains ineligible
components that are ancillary to the
eligible components, and the product or
service is the most cost-effective means
of receiving the eligible component
functionality, without regard to the
value of the ineligible component, costs
need not be allocated between the
eligible and ineligible components.
Discounts shall be provided on the full
cost of the product or service. An
ineligible component is ‘‘ancillary’’ if a
price for the ineligible component
cannot be determined separately and
independently from the price of the
eligible components, and the specific
package remains the most cost-effective
means of receiving the eligible services,
without regard to the value of the
ineligible functionality.
(3) The Administrator shall utilize the
cost allocation requirements of this
paragraph in evaluating mixed
eligibility requests under paragraph
(e)(1) of this section.
(f) Filing of FCC Form 473. All service
providers eligible to provide
telecommunications and other
supported services under this subpart
shall submit annually a completed FCC
Form 473 to the Administrator. The FCC
Form 473 shall be signed by an
authorized person and shall include that
person’s certification under oath that:
(1) The prices in any offer that this
service provider makes pursuant to the
schools and libraries universal service
support program have been arrived at
independently, without, for the purpose
of restricting competition, any
consultation, communication, or
agreement with any other offeror or
competitor relating to those prices, the
intention to submit an offer, or the
methods or factors used to calculate the
prices offered;
(2) The prices in any offer that this
service provider makes pursuant to the
schools and libraries universal service
support program will not be knowingly
disclosed by this service provider,
directly or indirectly, to any other
offeror or competitor before bid opening
(in the case of a sealed bid solicitation)
or contract award (in the case of a
negotiated solicitation) unless otherwise
required by law; and
(3) No attempt will be made by this
service provider to induce any other
concern to submit or not to submit an
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49201
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
offer for the purpose of restricting
competition.
(4) The service provider listed on the
FCC Form 473 certifies that the invoices
that are submitted by this Service
Provider to the Billed Entity for
reimbursement pursuant to Billed Entity
Applicant Reimbursement Forms (FCC
Form 472) are accurate and represent
payments from the Billed Entity to the
Service Provider for equipment and
services provided pursuant to E-rate
program rules.
(5) The service provider listed on the
FCC Form 473 certifies that the bills or
invoices issued by this service provider
to the billed entity are for equipment
and services eligible for universal
service support by the Administrator,
and exclude any charges previously
invoiced to the Administrator by the
service provider.
■ 8. Amend § 54.505 by revising
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3)(i),
(b)(3)(ii), (b)(4), (c) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 54.505
Discounts.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) For schools and school districts,
the level of poverty shall be based on
the percentage of the student enrollment
that is eligible for a free or reduced price
lunch under the national school lunch
program or a federally-approved
alternative mechanism. School districts
shall divide the total number of students
eligible for the National School Lunch
Program within the school district by
the total number of students within the
school district to arrive at a percentage
of students eligible. This percentage rate
shall then be applied to the discount
matrix to set a discount rate for the
supported services purchased by all
schools within the school district.
Independent charter schools, private
schools, and other eligible educational
facilities should calculate a single
discount percentage rate based on the
total number of students under the
control of the central administrative
agency.
(2) For libraries and library consortia,
the level of poverty shall be based on
the percentage of the student enrollment
that is eligible for a free or reduced price
lunch under the national school lunch
program or a federally-approved
alternative mechanism in the public
school district in which they are located
and should use that school district’s
discount rate when applying as a library
system or on behalf of individual
libraries within that system. Library
systems that have branches or outlets in
more than one public school district
should use the address of the central
outlet or main administrative office to
determine which school district the
library system is in, and should use that
school district’s discount rate when
applying as a library system or on behalf
of individual libraries within that
system. If the library is not in a school
district, then its level of poverty shall be
based on an average of the percentage of
students eligible for the national school
lunch program in each of the school
districts that children living in the
library’s location attend.
(3) * * *
(i) The Administrator shall designate
a school or library as ‘‘urban’’ if the
school or library is located in an
urbanized area as determined by the
most recent rural-urban classification by
the Bureau of the Census. The
Administrator shall designate all other
schools and libraries as ‘‘rural.’’
(ii) Any school district or library
system that has a majority of schools or
libraries in a rural area qualifies for the
additional rural discount.
(4) School districts, library systems, or
other billed entities shall calculate
discounts on supported services
described in § 54.502(a) that are shared
by two or more of their schools,
libraries, or consortia members by
calculating an average discount based
on the applicable district-wide
discounts of all member schools and
libraries. School districts, library
systems, or other billed entities shall
ensure that, for each year in which an
eligible school or library is included for
purposes of calculating the aggregate
discount rate, that eligible school or
library shall receive a proportionate
share of the shared services for which
support is sought. For schools, the
discount shall be a simple average of the
applicable district-wide percentage for
all schools sharing a portion of the
shared services. For libraries, the
average discount shall be a simple
average of the applicable discounts to
which the libraries sharing a portion of
the shared services are entitled.
(c) Matrices. Except as provided in
paragraph (d) of this section, the
Administrator shall use the following
matrices to set discount rates to be
applied to eligible category one and
category two services purchased by
eligible schools, school districts,
libraries, or consortia based on the
institution’s level of poverty and
location in an ‘‘urban’’ or ‘‘rural’’ area.
Category one schools and
libraries discount matrix
Category two schools and
libraries discount matrix
Discount level
Discount level
% of students eligible for National School Lunch Program
Urban
discount
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
< 1 ....................................................................................................................
1–19 .................................................................................................................
20–34 ...............................................................................................................
35–49 ...............................................................................................................
50–74 ...............................................................................................................
75–100 .............................................................................................................
(d) Voice Services. Discounts for
category one voice services shall be
reduced by 20 percentage points off
applicant discount percentage rates for
each funding year starting in funding
year 2015, and reduced by an additional
20 percentage points off applicant
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
Rural
discount
20
40
50
60
80
90
discount percentage rates each
subsequent funding year.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Revise § 54.507 to read as follows:
§ 54.507
Cap.
(a) Amount of the annual cap. The
aggregate annual cap on federal
universal service support for schools
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Urban
discount
25
50
60
70
80
90
Rural
discount
20
40
50
60
80
85
25
50
60
70
80
85
and libraries shall be $2.25 billion per
funding year, of which $1 billion per
funding year will be available for the
category two services, as described in
§ 54.502(a)(2), unless demand for
category one services is higher than
available funding.
(1) Inflation increase. In funding year
2010 and subsequent funding years, the
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
49202
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
$2.25 billion funding cap on federal
universal service support for schools
and libraries shall be automatically
increased annually to take into account
increases in the rate of inflation as
calculated in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(2) Increase calculation. To measure
increases in the rate of inflation for the
purposes of this paragraph (a), the
Commission shall use the Gross
Domestic Product Chain-type Price
Index (GDP–CPI). To compute the
annual increase as required by this
paragraph (a), the percentage increase in
the GDP–CPI from the previous year
will be used. For instance, the annual
increase in the GDP–CPI from 2008 to
2009 would be used for the 2010
funding year. The increase shall be
rounded to the nearest 0.1 percent by
rounding 0.05 percent and above to the
next higher 0.1 percent and otherwise
rounding to the next lower 0.1 percent.
This percentage increase shall be added
to the amount of the annual funding cap
from the previous funding year. If the
yearly average GDP–CPI decreases or
stays the same, the annual funding cap
shall remain the same as the previous
year.
(3) Public notice. When the
calculation of the yearly average GDP–
CPI is determined, the Wireline
Competition Bureau shall publish a
public notice in the Federal Register
within 60 days announcing any increase
of the annual funding cap based on the
rate of inflation.
(4) Filing window requests. At the
close of the filing window, if requests
for category one services are greater than
the available funding, the Administrator
shall shift category two funds to provide
support for category one services. If
available funds are sufficient to meet
demand for category one services, the
Administrator, at the direction of the
Wireline Competition Bureau, shall
direct the remaining additional funds to
provide support for category two
requests.
(5) Amount of unused funds. All
funds collected that are unused shall be
carried forward into subsequent funding
years for use in the schools and libraries
support mechanism in accordance with
the public interest and notwithstanding
the annual cap. The Chief, Wireline
Competition Bureau, is delegated
authority to determine the proportion of
unused funds, if any, needed to meet
category one demand, and to direct the
Administrator to use any remaining
funds to provide support for category
two requests. The Administrator shall
report to the Commission, on a quarterly
basis, funding that is unused from prior
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
years of the schools and libraries
support mechanism.
(6) Application of unused funds. On
an annual basis, in the second quarter
of each calendar year, all funds that are
collected and that are unused from prior
years shall be available for use in the
next full funding year of the schools and
libraries mechanism in accordance with
the public interest and notwithstanding
the annual cap as described in this
paragraph (a).
(b) Funding year. A funding year for
purposes of the schools and libraries
cap shall be the period July 1 through
June 30.
(c) Requests. Funds shall be available
to fund discounts for eligible schools
and libraries and consortia of such
eligible entities on a first-come-firstserved basis, with requests accepted
beginning on the first of July prior to
each funding year. The Administrator
shall maintain on the Administrator’s
Web site a running tally of the funds
already committed for the existing
funding year. The Administrator shall
implement an initial filing period that
treats all schools and libraries filing
within that period as if their
applications were simultaneously
received. The initial filing period shall
begin on the date that the Administrator
begins to receive applications for
support, and shall conclude on a date to
be determined by the Administrator.
The Administrator may implement such
additional filing periods as it deems
necessary.
(d) Annual filing requirement.
Schools and libraries, and consortia of
such eligible entities shall file new
funding requests for each funding year
no sooner than the July 1 prior to the
start of that funding year. Schools,
libraries, and eligible consortia must use
recurring services for which discounts
have been committed by the
Administrator within the funding year
for which the discounts were sought.
Implementation of non-recurring
services may begin on April 1 prior to
the July 1 start of the funding year. The
deadline for implementation of nonrecurring services will be September 30
following the close of the funding year.
An applicant may request and receive
from the Administrator an extension of
the implementation deadline for nonrecurring services if it satisfies one of
the following criteria:
(1) The applicant’s funding
commitment decision letter is issued by
the Administrator on or after March 1 of
the funding year for which discounts are
authorized;
(2) The applicant receives a service
provider change authorization or service
substitution authorization from the
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Administrator on or after March 1 of the
funding year for which discounts are
authorized;
(3) The applicant’s service provider is
unable to complete implementation for
reasons beyond the service provider’s
control; or
(4) The applicant’s service provider is
unwilling to complete installation
because funding disbursements are
delayed while the Administrator
investigates their application for
program compliance.
(e) Long term contracts. If schools and
libraries enter into long term contracts
for eligible services, the Administrator
shall only commit funds to cover the
pro rata portion of such a long term
contract scheduled to be delivered
during the funding year for which
universal service support is sought.
(f) Rules of distribution. When the
filing period described in paragraph (c)
of this section closes, the Administrator
shall calculate the total demand for both
category one and category two support
submitted by applicants during the
filing period. If total demand for the
funding year exceeds the total support
available for category one or both
categories, the Administrator shall take
the following steps:
(1) Category one. The Administrator
shall first calculate the demand for
category one services for all discount
levels. The Administrator shall allocate
the category one funds to these requests
for support, beginning with the most
economically disadvantaged schools
and libraries, as determined by the
schools and libraries discount matrix in
§ 54.505(c). Schools and libraries
eligible for a 90 percent discount shall
receive first priority for the category one
funds. The Administrator shall next
allocate funds toward the requests
submitted by schools and libraries
eligible for an 80 percent discount, then
for a 70 percent discount, and shall
continue committing funds for category
one services in the same manner to the
applicants at each descending discount
level until there are no funds remaining.
(2) Category two. The Administrator
shall next calculate the demand for
category two services for all discount
categories as determined by the schools
and libraries discount matrix in
§ 54.505(c). If that demand exceeds the
category two budget for that funding
year, the Administrator shall allocate
the category two funds beginning with
the most economically disadvantaged
schools and libraries, as determined by
the schools and libraries discount
matrix in § 54.505(c). The Administrator
shall allocate funds toward the category
two requests submitted by schools and
libraries eligible for an 85 percent
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
discount first, then for a 80 percent
discount, and shall continue committing
funds in the same manner to the
applicants at each descending discount
level until there are no category two
funds remaining.
(3) To the extent that there are single
discount percentage levels associated
with ‘‘shared services’’ under
§ 54.505(b)(4), the Administrator shall
allocate funds to the applicants at each
descending discount level (e.g., 90
percent, 89 percent, then 88 percent)
until there are no funds remaining.
(4) For both paragraphs (f)(1) and (2)
of this section, if the remaining funds
are not sufficient to support all of the
funding requests within a particular
discount level, the Administrator shall
allocate funds at that discount level
using the percentage of students eligible
for the National School Lunch Program.
Thus, if there is not enough support to
fund all requests at the 40 percent
discount level, the Administrator shall
allocate funds beginning with those
applicants with the highest percentage
of NSLP eligibility for that discount
level by funding those applicants with
19 percent NSLP eligibility, then 18
percent NSLP eligibility, and shall
continue committing funds in the same
manner to applicants at each
descending percentage of NSLP until
there are no funds remaining.
§ 54.508
■
■
§ 54.511
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
[Removed and Reserved]
10. Remove and reserve § 54.508.
11. Revise § 54.511 to read as follows:
Ordering services.
(a) Selecting a provider of eligible
services. Except as exempted in
§ 54.503(e), in selecting a provider of
eligible services, schools, libraries,
library consortia, and consortia
including any of those entities shall
carefully consider all bids submitted
and must select the most cost-effective
service offering. In determining which
service offering is the most costeffective, entities may consider relevant
factors other than the pre-discount
prices submitted by providers, but price
should be the primary factor considered.
(b) Lowest corresponding price.
Providers of eligible services shall not
submit bids for or charge schools,
school districts, libraries, library
consortia, or consortia including any of
these entities a price above the lowest
corresponding price for supported
services, unless the Commission, with
respect to interstate services or the state
commission with respect to intrastate
services, finds that the lowest
corresponding price is not
compensatory. Promotional rates offered
by a service provider for a period of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
more than 90 days must be included
among the comparable rates upon which
the lowest corresponding price is
determined.
■ 12. Revise § 54.514 to read as follows:
§ 54.514
Payment for discounted services.
(a) Invoice filing deadline. Invoices
must be submitted to the Administrator:
(1) 120 days after the last day to
receive service, or
(2) 120 days after the date of the FCC
Form 486 Notification Letter, whichever
is later.
(b) Invoice deadline extension. In
advance of the deadline calculated
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section,
service providers or billed entities may
request a one-time extension of the
invoicing deadline. The Administrator
shall grant a 120 day extension of the
invoice filing deadline, if it is timely
requested.
(c) Choice of payment method.
Service providers providing discounted
services under this subpart in any
funding year shall, prior to the
submission of the FCC Form 471, permit
the billed entity to choose the method
of payment for the discounted services
from those methods approved by the
Administrator, including by making a
full, undiscounted payment and
receiving subsequent reimbursement of
the discount amount from the
Administrator.
■ 13. Revise § 54.516 to read as follows:
§ 54.516
Auditing and inspections.
(a) Recordkeeping requirements—(1)
Schools, libraries, and consortia.
Schools, libraries, and any consortium
that includes schools or libraries shall
retain all documents related to the
application for, receipt, and delivery of
supported services for at least 10 years
after the latter of the last day of the
applicable funding year or the service
delivery deadline for the funding
request. Any other document that
demonstrates compliance with the
statutory or regulatory requirements for
the schools and libraries mechanism
shall be retained as well. Schools,
libraries, and consortia shall maintain
asset and inventory records of
equipment purchased as components of
supported category two services
sufficient to verify the actual location of
such equipment for a period of 10 years
after purchase.
(2) Service providers. Service
providers shall retain documents related
to the delivery of supported services for
at least 10 years after the latter of the
last day of the applicable funding year
or the service delivery deadline for the
funding request. Any other document
that demonstrates compliance with the
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49203
statutory or regulatory requirements for
the schools and libraries mechanism
shall be retained as well.
(b) Production of records. Schools,
libraries, consortia, and service
providers shall produce such records at
the request of any representative
(including any auditor) appointed by a
state education department, the
Administrator, the FCC, or any local,
state or federal agency with jurisdiction
over the entity.
(c) Audits. Schools, libraries,
consortia, and service providers shall be
subject to audits and other
investigations to evaluate their
compliance with the statutory and
regulatory requirements for the schools
and libraries universal service support
mechanism, including those
requirements pertaining to what
services and products are purchased,
what services and products are
delivered, and how services and
products are being used. Schools,
libraries, and consortia receiving
discounted services must provide
consent before a service provider
releases confidential information to the
auditor, reviewer, or other
representative.
(d) Inspections. Schools, libraries,
consortia and service providers shall
permit any representative (including
any auditor) appointed by a state
education department, the
Administrator, the Commission or any
local, state or federal agency with
jurisdiction over the entity to enter their
premises to conduct E-rate compliance
inspections.
Subpart G—Universal Service Support
for Health Care Providers
14. Amend § 54.642 by revising
paragraph (h)(5) to read as follows:
■
§ 54.642 Competitive bidding requirements
and exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(5) Schools and libraries program
master contracts. Subject to the
provisions in §§ 54.500, 54.501(c)(1),
and 54.503, an eligible health care
provider in a consortium with
participants in the schools and libraries
universal service support program and a
party to the consortium’s existing
contract is exempt from the Healthcare
Connect Fund competitive bidding
requirements if the contract was
approved in the schools and libraries
universal service support program as a
master contract. The health care
provider must comply with all
Healthcare Connect Fund rules and
procedures except for those applicable
to competitive bidding.
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
49204
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart H—Administration
§ 54.705
[Amended]
15. Amend § 54.705 by removing and
reserving paragraphs (a)(1)(vi) through
(viii).
■
Subpart I—Review of Decisions Issued
by the Administrator
■
16. Revise § 54.719 to read as follows:
§ 54.719 Parties permitted to seek review
of Administrator decision.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(a) Any party aggrieved by an action
taken by the Administrator, as defined
in § 54.701, § 54.703, or § 54.705, must
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
first seek review from the
Administrator.
(b) Any party aggrieved by an action
taken by the Administrator, after
seeking review from the Administrator,
may then seek review from the Federal
Communications Commission, as set
forth in § 54.722.
(c) Parties seeking waivers of the
Commission’s rules shall seek relief
directly from the Commission.
■ 17. Revise § 54.720 to read as follows:
§ 54.720
Filing deadlines.
(a) An affected party requesting
review of an Administrator decision by
the Commission pursuant to § 54.719,
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
shall file such a request within sixty
(60) days from the date the
Administrator issues a decision.
(b) In all cases of requests for review
filed under § 54.719(a) through (c) the
request for review shall be deemed filed
on the postmark date. If the postmark
date cannot be determined, the
applicant must file a sworn affidavit
stating the date that the request for
review was mailed.
(c) Parties shall adhere to the time
periods for filing oppositions and
replies set forth in 47 CFR 1.45.
[FR Doc. 2014–18937 Filed 8–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM
19AUR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49159-49204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18937]
[[Page 49159]]
Vol. 79
Tuesday,
No. 160
August 19, 2014
Part II
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Part 54
Modernization of the Schools and Libraries ``E-Rate'' Program; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 49160]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 13-184; FCC 14-99]
Modernization of the Schools and Libraries ``E-Rate'' Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) takes major steps to modernize the E-rate program (more
formally known as the schools and libraries universal service support
mechanism). Building on the comments the Commission received in
response to the E-rate Modernization NPRM, and the E-rate Modernization
Public Notice, as well as recommendations from the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), the program improvements the Commission
adopts as part of this document begin the process of reorienting the E-
rate program to focus on high-speed broadband for our nation's schools
and libraries.
DATES: Effective September 18, 2014, except for amendments in
Sec. Sec. 54.502(b)(2), (3), and (5), 54.503(c), 54.504(a) and (f),
54.507(d), 54.514(a), 54.516(a) through (c), and 54.720(a), which are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and will become effective upon
announcement by the FCC in the Federal Register of OMB approval of the
subject information collection requirements; and except for amendments
in Sec. Sec. 54.500, 54.501(a)(1), 54.502(a), 54.507(a) through (c)
and (e) through (f), 54.516, and 54.570(b) and (c), which shall become
effective on July 1, 2015; and amendments in Sec. Sec. 54.504(f)(4)
and (5) and 54.514(c), which shall become effective on July 1, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Bachtell or Kate Dumouchel,
Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
at (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, in WC Docket No. 13-184; FCC 14-99, adopted on July 11, 2014
and released on July 23, 2014. 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. Or at the following Internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-e-rate-modernization-order. The Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that was adopted concurrently with the
Report and Order is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
I. Introduction
1. In this Report and Order we take major steps to modernize the E-
rate program. In so doing, we recognize E-rate's extraordinary success
as the federal government's largest education technology program. Over
the last 17 years, the E-rate program has helped to ensure that our
nation's schools and libraries are connected to the digital world. At
the same time, we acknowledge and embrace our responsibility to make
sure the program evolves as the needs of schools and libraries evolve.
In particular, the E-rate program must evolve to focus on providing
support for the high-speed broadband that schools need to take
advantage of bandwidth-intensive digital learning technologies and that
libraries need to provide their patrons with high-speed access to the
Internet on mobile devices as well as desktops. Access to high-speed
broadband is crucial to improving educational experiences and expanding
opportunities for all of our nation's students, teachers, parents and
communities. Building on the comments we received in response to the E-
rate Modernization NPRM, 78 FR 51597, August 20, 2013, and the E-rate
Modernization Public Notice, 79 FR 13300, March 10, 2014, as well as
recommendations from the GAO, the program improvements we adopt as part
of this Report and Order begin the process of reorienting the E-rate
program to focus on high-speed broadband for our nation's schools and
libraries.
2. The record clearly demonstrates the power of high-speed
broadband connectivity to transform learning. High-speed broadband, to
and within schools, connects students to cutting-edge learning tools in
the areas of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)
education, necessary for preparing them to compete in the global
economy. High-speed broadband also creates opportunities for customized
learning, by giving our students and their teachers access to
interactive content, and to assessments and analytics that provide
students, their teachers, and their parents real-time information about
student performance while allowing for seamless engagement between home
and school. Finally, high-speed broadband expands the reach of our
schools and creates opportunities for collaborative distance learning,
providing all students access to expert instruction, no matter how
small the school they attend or how far they live from experts in their
field of study.
3. High-speed broadband is also a critical component of 21st
Century libraries. In many communities, libraries are the only source
of free, publicly available Internet access. As a result, high-speed
broadband at libraries provides library patrons, many of whom have no
other Internet access, the ability to participate in the digital world.
Broadband services at libraries are crucial for enabling and fostering
life-long learning, and they enable students at all stages of their
education to perform research and complete their homework. Broadband at
libraries is also crucial for students studying for and taking their
General Educational Development (GED) tests and allows students to take
and study for college and graduate-level courses. Broadband at
libraries enables patrons to seek and apply for jobs; learn new skills;
interact with federal, state, local, and Tribal government agencies;
search for health-care and other crucial information; make well-
informed purchasing decisions; and stay in touch with friends and
family.
4. In adopting this Report and Order, we recognize the critical
role the E-rate program plays in the lives of our students and
communities and the importance of ensuring that the program supports
sufficient, equitable, and predictable support for high-speed
connectivity to and within schools and libraries. It is a crucial part
of the Commission's broader mandate to further broadband deployment and
adoption across our nation. We therefore adopt a number of the
proposals made in the E-rate Modernization NPRM and begin the process
of re-focusing the E-rate program on providing the necessary support to
ensure our nation's schools and libraries have affordable access to
high-speed broadband.
5. To maximize the benefits of the E-rate program to our nation's
schools and libraries, we adopt the proposal made in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM to establish clear goals and measures for the
program. The three goals we adopt for the E-rate program are: (1)
Ensuring affordable access to high-speed broadband sufficient to
support digital learning in schools and robust connectivity for all
libraries; (2) maximizing the cost-effectiveness of spending for E-rate
supported purchases; and (3) making the E-rate application process and
other E-rate
[[Page 49161]]
processes fast, simple and efficient. We also adopt approaches for
measuring our success towards meeting those goals.
6. In addition, we adopt the following updates to the E-rate
program aimed at furthering each of those goals:
To ensure affordable access to high-speed broadband
sufficient to support digital learning in schools and robust
connectivity for all libraries, we:
[cir] Set an annual funding target of $1 billion for funding for
internal connections needed to support high-speed broadband within
schools and libraries;
[cir] test a more equitable approach to funding internal
connections for applicants who seek support in funding years 2015 and
2016; and
[cir] reorient the E-rate program to focus on supporting high-speed
broadband by phasing down support for voice services and eliminating
support for other legacy services.
To maximize the cost-effectiveness of spending for E-rate
supported purchases, we:
[cir] Adopt transparency measures to encourage sharing of cost and
connectivity data;
[cir] encourage consortia purchasing; and
[cir] emphasize that providers must offer the lowest corresponding
price.
To make the E-rate application process and other E-rate
processes fast, simple and efficient, we:
[cir] Streamline the application process by:
[ssquf] Simplifying the application process for multi-year
contracts;
[ssquf] exempting low-cost, high-speed business-class broadband
Internet access services from the competitive bidding requirements;
[ssquf] easing the signed contract requirement;
[ssquf] removing the technology plan requirement;
[ssquf] requiring electronic filings; and
[ssquf] enabling direct connections between schools and libraries.
[cir] Simplify discount rate calculations by:
[ssquf] Requiring a district-wide discount rate;
[ssquf] modifying the definition of urban and rural;
[ssquf] addressing changes to the national school lunch program
(NSLP); and
[ssquf] modifying the requirements for applicants using surveys.
[cir] Simplify the invoicing and disbursement process by:
[ssquf] Allowing direct invoicing by schools and libraries; and
[ssquf] adopting an invoicing deadline.
[cir] Create a Tribal consultation, training and outreach program.
[cir] require the filing of all universal service appeals initially
with USAC.
[cir] direct USAC to adopt additional measures to improve the
administration of the program by:
[ssquf] Speeding review of applications, commitment decisions and
disbursements;
[ssquf] modernizing USAC's information technology systems;
[ssquf] adopting open data policies;
[ssquf] improving communications with E-rate applicants and
providers.
[cir] Protect against waste, fraud, and abuse by:
[ssquf] Extending the document retention deadline; and
[ssquf] ensuring auditors and investigators access to an
applicant's premises upon request.
7. The most fundamental step we take today is to overhaul the
support system for internal connections, including the deployment of
high-speed Wi-Fi in classrooms and libraries nationwide. When the E-
rate program was created, the idea of wired connections to classrooms
was revolutionary. Today, students and teachers can and do take their
devices with them wherever they go, which means they need to have
Internet connectivity throughout their schools. Likewise, in 1997,
desktop computers offered state of the art connectivity in libraries.
Now, library patrons bring their own devices and use those that belong
to their libraries. By modernizing the E-rate program to expand schools
and libraries access to more predictable E-rate funding that is
sufficient to meet their needs for Wi-Fi connectivity, and other
internal broadband connections.
8. Of course, Wi-Fi in classrooms and libraries requires broadband
connectivity to schools and libraries. We therefore also take steps in
this Report and Order to ensure that all eligible schools and libraries
will continue to be able to receive E-rate support to purchase
broadband services to their buildings.
9. At the same time, we are mindful of the importance of continuing
to improve the E-rate program in order to achieve the goals we adopt
herein. In order to ensure the E-rate program evolves to meet the
connectivity needs of our nation's schools and libraries, we leave the
record open in this proceeding to allow us to address in the future
those issues raised in the E-rate Modernization NPRM that we do not
address today. We also issue an accompanying Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FNPRM) to seek comment on some additional issues.
II. Performance Goals and Measures
10. Based on overwhelming support in the record, and consistent
with the Congressional directives in sections 254(b) and (h) of the
Communications Act (the Act), we adopt three goals modeled on those
proposed in the E-rate Modernization NPRM: (1) Ensuring affordable
access to high-speed broadband sufficient to support digital learning
in schools and robust connectivity for all libraries; (2) maximizing
the cost-effectiveness of spending for E-rate supported purchases; and
(3) making the E-rate application process and other E-rate processes
fast, simple, and efficient. We also adopt associated performance
measures and targets to determine whether we are successfully achieving
these goals. Clearly articulating goals for the E-rate program, along
with specific performance measures and targets, will help us focus our
efforts as we modernize the E-rate program, monitor our progress over
time, and adjust course as needed. In choosing these goals, performance
measures, and targets, we also recognize the need to be sufficiently
flexible to accommodate the evolving technological and connectivity
needs of schools and libraries.
11. Establishing clear performance goals is also consistent with
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), which
requires federal agencies to engage in strategic planning and
performance measurement. In 2007, the Commission adopted measures to
safeguard the universal service fund (USF or Fund) from waste, fraud,
and abuse as well as measures to improve the management,
administration, and oversight of the USF generally. More recently, the
Commission has adopted goals in the other USF programs it has
modernized over the last few years. In the E-rate Modernization NPRM,
while the Commission recognized the importance of these measures, it
also acknowledged the subsequent finding by the GAO that the E-rate
program, specifically, lacked sufficient performance goals and
measures. In its 2009 report, the GAO emphasized that successful
performance measures should be tied to goals, address important aspects
of program performance, and provide useful information for decision
making. The goals, measures, and targets we adopt today respond
directly to the GAO's recommendations and place the E-rate program on a
clear strategic path, consistent with the GPRA.
12. Throughout this Report and Order, we use these three goals as
guideposts for our decisions about how to close the
[[Page 49162]]
gap between the broadband needs of schools and libraries and their
ability to obtain those services. As part of the performance measures,
we set connectivity targets by which we will evaluate progress towards
meeting our goals. We also adopt reporting obligations for USAC and for
E-rate program participants that will enable us to measure progress
towards meeting the goals. While we identify specific reporting
obligations, we delegate authority to the Bureau, working with the
Office of the Managing Director (OMD), to finalize the format and
timing of those reporting obligations.
13. Using the adopted goals and measures, we will, consistent with
the GPRA, monitor the performance of the E-rate program over time, and
regularly reassess our rules and policies to ensure that they are
continuing to support our goals. If we find that the E-rate program is
not making progress towards meeting the performance goals, we will
consider corrective actions. Likewise, to the extent that the adopted
targets and performance measures do not help us assess program
performance, we will revisit them.
A. Ensuring Affordable Access to High-Speed Broadband Sufficient To
Support Digital Learning in Schools and Robust Connectivity for All
Libraries
1. Goal
14. We adopt as our first goal ensuring affordable access to high-
speed broadband sufficient to support digital learning in schools and
robust connectivity for all libraries. This goal is widely supported by
commenters and implements Congress's directive in section 254(h) of the
Act that the Commission ``enhance access to advanced telecommunications
and information services'' to schools and libraries ``to the extent
technically feasible and economically reasonable,'' and determine a
discount level for all E-rate funded services that is ``appropriate and
necessary to ensure affordable access to and use of such services.''
15. Our record demonstrates that high-speed broadband is essential
for students, teachers, and library patrons seeking to take advantage
of the rapidly expanding opportunities for interactive digital
learning. As the Commission observed in the E-rate Modernization NPRM,
the availability of high-speed broadband in schools transforms learning
opportunities and expands school boundaries by providing all students
access to high-quality courses and expert instruction. We also agree
with commenters that high-speed broadband connections should be
available to students and teachers throughout a school, enabling them
to utilize online materials and blended learning throughout the day and
as part of their curriculum.
16. High-speed broadband is also critical in libraries, where it
provides patrons with the ability to access the Internet, search for
and apply for jobs, engage with governmental entities, learn new
skills, and engage in life-long learning. High-speed broadband to and
within libraries is especially important in communities where many lack
home access to broadband, including minority and low-income
communities. Libraries in these communities provide broadband access
during non-school hours to students who do not have home access to
broadband.
17. The record demonstrates that schools and libraries, recognizing
the importance of high-speed broadband to utilize the variety of Wi-Fi-
enabled devices for educational purposes, are racing to deploy and
upgrade their networks. Specifically, schools and libraries are working
to upgrade local area networks (LANs) and wireless local area networks
(WLANs or Wi-Fi networks) to deliver high-speed broadband to every
student and patron device. School districts are increasingly
implementing one-to-one student to device initiatives and bring your
own device (BYOD) programs that require high-density Wi-Fi coverage in
every classroom and common area. The WLAN upgrades necessary to support
one-to-one digital learning may include upgraded switches, wireless
routers, Cat 6 or fiber cabling, and 802.11n (or better) wireless
access points (WAPs). Though the increasing number of Wi-Fi-enabled
devices in schools provides exciting educational possibilities, 57
percent of school districts responding to a recent survey by the
Consortium on School Networking do not believe that they have Wi-Fi
capacity capable of handling a one-to-one deployment.
18. Libraries are also seeing a rapid increase in bandwidth demand
driven by Wi-Fi-enabled devices and the public's need for broadband
access. The percentage of libraries providing free Wi-Fi to the public
grew from 37 percent in 2006 to 91 percent in 2012. Several commenters
note that the public library is sometimes the only place offering free
Internet access to the community. Many libraries report that patron-
owned devices connected to their network will soon surpass library-
provided devices. New technologies such as digital media labs,
interactive learning tools for adult education, and videoconferencing
services also contribute to increasing bandwidth demand in libraries.
19. Finally, it is also crucial that high-speed broadband to
schools and libraries be affordable, consistent with section 254(b)(1).
The record makes clear that, in some areas today, schools and libraries
are unable to afford high-speed broadband services or the services they
can afford provide insufficient bandwidth to support digital learning
or provide their patrons with robust Internet access. We have collected
voluminous data on the current state of connectivity to schools and
libraries, and the prices schools and applicants are paying for their
connectivity. The record reveals a wide variance in the speed and price
of connectivity at schools and libraries nationwide. Location, access
to fiber connections, financial resources, access to a research and
education network (REN), statewide or regional coordination, ISP
competition, and a well-informed IT staff are among the many factors
that can affect a school's or library's ability to procure high-speed
connectivity at a reasonable price.
2. Measures
20. We will evaluate progress towards our first goal by comparing
connectivity to and within schools and libraries with widely accepted
connectivity targets that are based on digital learning and library
needs. As illustrated in Figure 2, the connectivity needs of schools
can be divided into three components:
Internet Access--School districts and some library systems
purchase Internet access for the entire district or system at a single
point of aggregation. For the purposes of this measure, we refer to
``Internet access'' as the connection or connections that allow traffic
to flow from that aggregation point to the public Internet. As part of
the purchase of Internet access, the school district (or library
system) may purchase dedicated connectivity (e.g., dedicated transport)
from its point of aggregation to its Internet Service Provider's
(ISP's) point of presence. For schools and libraries that are not
connected to a district Wide Area Networking (WAN), Internet access
simply refers to the school's or library's direct connection to the
public Internet.
WAN/Last-Mile--As just described, school districts and
library systems frequently connect individual schools and libraries to
a central aggregation point, such as a district, county, or regional
data hub, that hosts the Internet demarcation point for the entire
district, county, regional, or library system. We refer to these
connections as WAN or last mile connections.
[[Page 49163]]
Internal Connections--This category encompasses the
infrastructure necessary to deliver Internet access from the edge of a
school or library to the actual student, faculty, or patron end-user
device. Internal connections include Wi-Fi.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AU14.000
21. For each of these three network components, we adopt separate
measures of progress, including distinct connectivity targets.
a. Internet Access
22. Connectivity Targets. We adopt the State Education Technology
Directors Association's (SETDA) target recommendation of Internet
access for schools of at least 100 Mbps per 1,000 students and staff
(users) in the short term and 1 Gbps Internet access per 1,000 users in
the longer term. We agree with those commenters who support both the
shorter and longer-term connectivity SETDA targets as reflecting
schools' bandwidth needs as they increasingly adopt digital learning
strategies and one-to-one device initiatives. SETDA's long-term targets
are also consistent with President Obama's initiative to connect 99
percent of students to high-speed broadband within five years.
23. We will measure Internet connectivity at the district level for
school districts and at the school level for schools that are not
members of a district (e.g., private schools). We recognize that the
SETDA target for Internet access connectivity may not be appropriate
for every school or school district, especially very large or very
small districts or individual schools, and will take that into account
when measuring success towards the targets we set today. Large school
districts often keep a significant amount of traffic on their internal
networks and are able to oversubscribe Internet connections, thereby
requiring less per-student Internet access bandwidth. For example, the
Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) network has approximately
750,000 total users and LAUSD is implementing a district-wide one-to-
one initiative. LAUSD anticipates that 90 Gbps Internet access
connectivity, or approximately 120 Mbps per 1,000 students, will
deliver sufficient bandwidth to every classroom and device with the
help of bandwidth optimization measures that compress data and
eliminate redundant traffic. We will continue to analyze data on
broadband demand.
24. This ongoing examination of our Internet connectivity targets
should include regular input from schools and libraries. We therefore
direct the Bureau to seek, as part of the application process, feedback
from schools and libraries on the sufficiency of their Internet access
bandwidth to meet their needs. The Bureau will consider all responses,
in conjunction with usage and demand data, when refining the Internet
connectivity targets.
25. With respect to libraries, we initially adopt as a bandwidth
target the American Library Association's recommendation that all
libraries that serve fewer than 50,000 people have broadband speeds of
at least 100 Mbps and all libraries that serve 50,000 people or more
have broadband speeds of at least 1 Gbps. We agree with commenters that
the size of the community served by a library must factor into the
library target.
26. Affordability. To measure affordability, we will track pricing
as a function of bandwidth. We direct the Bureau, working with OMD and
USAC, to regularly report normalized pricing (e.g., price per Mbps) for
Internet access connectivity and to identify any outliers.
b. WAN
27. Connectivity Targets. We adopt as a target for WAN connectivity
the total number of schools that have a connection capable of providing
a dedicated data service scalable to the SETDA long-term WAN target of
10 Gbps per 1,000 students. At this time, the vast majority of
districts and libraries that operate WANs do not have demand for, and
therefore do not purchase, 10 Gbps circuits. Indeed, schools and
districts have varying broadband needs that will increase at different
rates. For example, some elementary schools may not require the same
bandwidth per student as middle or high schools. Very small schools
with
[[Page 49164]]
fewer than 100 students, particularly those that are part of small
districts, may not require WAN connections scalable to 1 Gbps
(equivalent to 10 Gbps per 1,000 students). However, in some instances
small schools in small districts may require more bandwidth per student
because they may not be able to take advantage of high oversubscription
ratios or conserve bandwidth by using network optimization tools to the
same extent as larger schools and larger districts. Conversely, large
school districts may be able to optimize their networks to deliver very
high speed broadband to the classroom without having WAN connectivity
of 10 Gbps per 1,000 students. We therefore adopt a target that focuses
on the scalable capacity of school district WAN connections to 10 Gbps
per 1,000 students. In most cases, a 1 Gbps fiber connection can be
readily scaled to 10 Gbps with upgraded networking equipment.
28. The WAN connectivity target that we adopt today is the result
of careful analysis of the record and our programmatic experience.
Several commenters agree that the SETDA WAN targets accurately reflect
the rapidly increasing broadband demand in schools. Others argue that
the SETDA WAN targets are too low given the increasing bandwidth
demands of standardized testing, educational applications, streaming
video, and the growing number of Wi-Fi-enabled devices in schools. Many
school districts report that they have doubled their WAN bandwidth in
recent years and are planning for future increases. Commenters opposed
to adoption of the SETDA WAN targets express concerns about uniform
targets for all schools because districts have widely varying student
populations, broadband availability, and financial resources. Other
commenters recommend that the Commission conduct a comprehensive
analysis of schools' actual broadband needs before establishing
specific bandwidth targets.
29. We find that a WAN connectivity target measured by the capacity
of connections available to schools properly balances the concerns
identified by commenters opposed to the SETDA bandwidth targets with
the need to ensure that all schools have affordable access to high-
speed broadband that supports digital learning. Several factors are
driving the need to increase bandwidth to and within schools. School
districts across the country are implementing one-to-one and BYOD
programs that require more robust connectivity. Cisco notes that the
density of devices and demand on the network in many schools surpasses
the demand of other high-density environments such as hotels,
restaurants, and corporate offices. The peak bandwidth usage of media-
rich curriculum and streaming video applications far exceeds the usage
of basic web browsing and email. Online assessments will require high-
speed connections that are also highly reliable and secure. A target of
ensuring that all schools connected to WANs have a connection scalable
to 10 Gbps per 1,000 students will ensure that schools have access to
bandwidth sufficient to meet growing demand while maintaining the
flexibility to purchase the bandwidth that meets their needs.
30. We direct the Bureau to continue analyzing data on WAN
connectivity. As with the Internet connectivity targets, this ongoing
examination should consider input from schools and libraries. We
therefore direct the Bureau to seek feedback from schools and
libraries, as part of the E-rate application process, on its WAN
connectivity and whether its WAN provides sufficient bandwidth to meet
the schools' and libraries' needs.
31. For libraries, our record is not sufficiently developed to
establish a performance measure and a WAN connectivity target at this
time. However, to the extent that libraries are connected by a WAN,
similar to our approach with schools, we will measure the total number
of libraries that have a connection capable of providing a data service
scalable to at least 10 Gbps.
32. Affordability. As with Internet access, we will measure
affordability of WAN connections by tracking pricing as a function of
bandwidth. We also direct the Bureau, working with OMD and USAC, to
regularly report normalized pricing (e.g., price per Mbps) for WAN
connectivity and to identify any outliers.
c. Internal Connections
33. Connectivity Targets. Pending the development of a suitable
available bandwidth measure for internal connectivity, we find that a
survey of school districts and libraries is the best method to gauge
the sufficiency of internal connections at this time. Our record is not
sufficiently well developed at this time to allow us to identify the
appropriate level of bandwidth per device in either schools or
libraries. We are also concerned that schools and libraries would find
such a measure difficult to report, as the responsible individuals may
not have access to the necessary technical data. We therefore decline
to adopt such a measure at this time, but direct the Bureau to continue
to develop the record on this issue.
34. Several commenters emphasize that Wi-Fi performance is best
measured by throughput to the student or library patron device rather
than classroom or library coverage. Other commenters suggest that the
high-density Wi-Fi demands of schools require at least one high-
capacity wireless access point (WAP) per classroom. Library commenters
discuss increasing Wi-Fi demand, but generally did not endorse specific
Wi-Fi targets. At this time, we do not think counting the number of
WAPs is the right approach to measuring connectivity within schools and
libraries. Several unique considerations impact WLAN design. For
example, some school districts opt for very high-capacity WAPs that
deliver ample bandwidth to multiple classrooms, while others have
installed multiple lower-speed WAPs per classroom. Distribution of WAPs
in libraries depends on specific factors such as user density and
building design. Therefore, we agree with commenters that available
bandwidth per device is a more suitable measure to determine whether
internal connections are sufficient to support the needs of each
individual user at a school or library. However, we need further
information from schools and libraries before we adopt a specific
measure. We therefore direct the Bureau to seek feedback from schools
and libraries, as part of the survey, on the sufficiency of their LAN/
WLAN capacity and coverage to support the educational or library
activities conducted at their school or library site. The answer to
this question will help provide the Commission with insight on progress
towards the stated goal pending the development of a more technical
measure.
35. Affordability. Consistent with our decision to use a survey to
measure internal connections availability pending the development of a
more precise measure, we direct the Bureau, as part of the survey, to
also seek feedback from those schools and libraries that have
insufficient WLAN capacity and coverage to support the educational or
library activities conducted at their school or library site as to the
reason for the lack of sufficient capacity and coverage (e.g.,
affordability of equipment, or lack of demand for Wi-Fi).
3. Reporting and Further Development of Measures and Targets
36. We direct the Bureau to revise the information collections from
E-rate applicants and vendors to collect data regarding the specific
measures
[[Page 49165]]
adopted. The Bureau should analyze data collected from applicants to
track progress toward meeting program goals and to inform revisions to
the performance measures and E-rate program rules, and if necessary, to
the goals themselves. We also agree with commenters that data should be
publicly accessible so that applicants can make informed decisions
regarding broadband purchasing and network design.
37. In addition to the connectivity and affordability measures
adopted, we agree with commenters who recommend that the Commission
evaluate actual bandwidth usage and network performance statistics to
continually refine our connectivity targets over time. Digital
education and the technologies that deliver it are rapidly evolving. In
such a dynamic environment, it is important that we understand changes
in the bandwidth demands of school and library networks supported by E-
rate as well as the performance of those networks. We direct the Bureau
to work with school districts and libraries to develop network
measurement methods that gather data on network usage and performance.
B. Maximizing the Cost-Effectiveness of Spending for E-Rate Supported
Purchases
1. Goal
38. We adopt as our second goal maximizing the cost-effectiveness
of spending for E-rate supported purchases, thereby minimizing the
contribution burden on consumers and businesses and maximizing the
benefit of each dollar spent on services for schools and libraries. Our
rules require that applicants ``select the most cost-effective service
offering.'' Moreover, when evaluating bids, applicants ``may consider
relevant factors other than the pre-discount prices . . . , but price
should be the primary factor considered.'' Commenters broadly support
the Commission's proposal to adopt cost-effectiveness as a goal of the
E-rate program, in recognition of the limited amount of E-rate funds
available to meet the connectivity needs of all schools and libraries
throughout the nation. This goal is also consistent with section
254(h)(2)(A) of the Act, which requires that support to schools and
libraries be ``economically reasonable.'' As the Commission recognized
in the E-rate Modernization NPRM, we have a ``responsibility to be a
prudent guardian of the public's resources.''
2. Measures
39. We will focus our evaluation of progress towards this goal by
measuring the prices paid for the E-rate services delivered to schools
and libraries. We will separately measure and track the prices paid for
the E-rate services delivered to schools and libraries for connections
to and for connections within schools and libraries. Detailed pricing
information is essential to our goal of maximizing cost-effectiveness
as well as ``affordability'' under our first goal. We thus direct the
Bureau and OMD working with USAC, as necessary, to develop the process
by which we will measure, track, and report on the prices paid for E-
rate services. In addition, we will continue to monitor the results of
USAC's audits and other reports to track progress in reducing improper
payments and waste, fraud and abuse.
40. For connectivity to school and library locations, we will
measure and report on prices paid as a function of bandwidth (e.g.,
dollars per Mbps) and also as a function of number of users (or unique
devices). In addition, we will track pricing as a function of various
potential cost drivers, which may include physical layer type (e.g.,
fiber, copper, coax, fixed wireless), service type (e.g., DSL, cable
modem, metro Ethernet, Internet access), geography (e.g., rural,
urban), carrier, carrier type, and purchasing mechanism (e.g.,
individual school, district, regional consortium).
41. An equally important component of cost-effectiveness is the
matching of capacity purchased with need. We direct the Bureau, working
with USAC, to develop and maintain best practices and benchmarks
regarding network utilization, network architectures, network
performance, and network optimization and management.
42. For connectivity within schools and libraries, we will measure
and report pricing as a function of number of users or unique devices.
We will track pricing of eligible expenses associated with LANs and
WLANs (e.g., Wi-Fi), including pricing of eligible network components
(e.g., switches, routers, wireless access points, cabling), managed
services, and other eligible services associated with LANs and WLANs.
In addition to tracking the pricing and capacity, we will seek to track
utilization and performance of these internal connections to more fully
measure the value delivered with E-rate support. We will also track
replacement and upgrade cycles and LAN/WLAN architectures to accurately
measure cost-effectiveness.
C. Making the E-Rrate Application Process and Other E-Rate Processes
Fast, Simple and Efficient
1. Goal
43. We adopt as our third goal making the E-rate application
process and other E-rate processes fast, simple, and efficient. Each
year, USAC reviews tens of thousands of funding requests from schools
and libraries, and processes thousands of appeals, invoice requests,
deadline extension requests, and additional inquiries from schools,
libraries, and other parties requesting information. Simplifying and
improving these procedures will help applicants receive their funding
in a timely fashion, which will allow them to plan better and maximize
the impact of their support. Simplification of the E-rate application
process also eases the administrative burden on applicants--which is
particularly important for smaller schools and libraries that lack
extensive administrative support. Conversely, complexity and delay
discourage participation and ultimately result in fewer schools and
libraries fully investing in needed high-speed broadband connections.
44. Commenters overwhelmingly agree that making E-rate process
fast, simple, and efficient is critical to the overall success of E-
rate. Commenters specifically highlight, among other things, the
importance of simplicity and transparency in the application submission
and review process, and the need for timeliness in making funding
commitments and paying invoices, reclaiming unused funds, and
completion of the application and selective review processes. We
recognize that there are a number of considerations that compete with
our efforts to simplify the program for applicants, speed processing of
applications and appeals, and minimize overhead costs. For example, we
will need to appropriately balance our need for data to appropriately
monitor program performance, with our efforts to minimize the
application burden on applicants. Likewise, we must ensure that a
simplified E-rate program does not open the door to waste, fraud, or
abuse.
2. Measures
45. In 2007, the Commission adopted certain E-rate performance
measurements related to the application and invoicing processes and the
resolution of appeals submitted to USAC. Building on that work, in the
E-rate Modernization NPRM the Commission sought comment on what
additional measures we should adopt to
[[Page 49166]]
support the goal of making the E-rate application process and other E-
rate processes fast, simple and efficient. While commenters are very
supportive of streamlining and simplifying the administrative process,
few offer actual performance measures to support this goal.
46. Based on our experience with the E-rate program, as an initial
measure, we will evaluate progress towards our third goal by measuring
the timely processing of funding commitments to eligible schools and
libraries by USAC by tracking the processing time against an
established target. Working with OMD, USAC has dramatically improved
its rate of application processing for this funding year (funding year
2014). In both funding year 2013 and 2014, USAC received applications
requesting between $2.6 and $2.7 billion in priority one E-rate
support. By July 1, 2013, USAC had only committed approximately $181
million in support. By contrast, as of July 1, 2014, USAC has already
committed approximately $1.22 billion in support. In 2013, USAC did not
reach $1 billion in commitments until October.
47. We applaud the progress USAC and OMD have made in improving the
timeliness of processing of funding commitments to eligible schools and
libraries. In light of this progress, and to ensure continued progress
and further expedite the commitment process and increase the timeliness
of funding commitment decisions, we direct USAC to aim to issue funding
commitments or denials for all ``workable'' funding requests by
September 1st of each funding year. A September 1st deadline provides
USAC with approximately five months beyond the application filing
window deadline to review all timely filed and complete funding
requests and gives applicants certainty regarding a funding decision
for those timely filed and complete requests by the beginning of the
school year. ``Workable'' means that a funding request is filed timely
and is complete, with all necessary information, to enable a reviewer
to make the appropriate funding decision, and the applicant, provider,
and any consultants are not subject to investigation, audit, or other
similar reason for delay in a funding decision. Funding requests from
applicants that decline to respond to USAC inquiries over the summer
may be considered ``unworkable'' for purposes of this performance goal,
though USAC will process these applications as quickly as possible when
school staff return for the year. USAC shall continue to report at
least monthly on its progress toward this goal, based on the dollars of
requests processed and the total count of schools and libraries
represented in those requests, as well as any other specific metrics
OMD identifies, and on any obstacles to achieving the application
processing target.
48. In adopting this target, we recognize that even ``workable''
funding requests may be time consuming for USAC to process and may,
after initial review, require further input from the applicant before
USAC can issue a funding commitment. Our adoption of a specific
application processing target should not affect in any way USAC's
contacts with applicants to seek additional information concerning a
funding request and USAC's thorough review of each application. USAC
must continue to provide applicants with an opportunity to respond to
their questions. While we seek to expedite USAC's processing of
applications, we remain committed to guarding against waste, fraud, and
abuse in the E-rate program. We note that failure of an applicant to
timely respond to requested information could constitute an obstacle to
receiving a funding decision by the target date. Therefore, we strongly
encourage applicants to timely respond to USAC requests for
information.
49. We will also evaluate our progress towards the third goal by
having USAC survey applicants and service providers about their
experience with the program. A survey will provide useful and useable
information to USAC and to the Commission about what is working and
what needs to be improved.
50. These performance measurements, taken together, will help
provide greater certainty to applicants and providers, and will assist
applicants in more timely deployment of eligible services.
Additionally, these measures will help to ensure that the E-rate
program is operated as efficiently as possible by minimizing the need
for the submission and review of other requests, such as service
delivery deadline extensions, service substitutions, service provider
identification number (SPIN) changes and FCC Form 500 filings to change
contract expiration dates, which are often necessitated due to the
delay in the issuance of timely funding commitment decisions letters.
III. Ensuring Affordable Access to High-Speed Broadband Sufficient To
Support Digital Learning in Schools and Robust Connectivity for All
Libraries
51. Having set our goals for the E-rate program, we now turn to the
process of modernizing the program to meet each of those goals. In this
section, we begin to update the E-rate program to ensure that schools
and libraries have affordable access to the high-speed broadband
connections needed for digital learning. The record in this proceeding
and our own analysis of the program lead us to a particular focus on
the internal connections, including Wi-Fi, needed for robust broadband
connectivity in all classrooms and libraries.
52. Wi-Fi is a transformative technology for education, allowing
schools and libraries to transition from computer labs to one-to-one
digital learning. Yet, in most funding years, the E-rate program has
been able to provide priority two support for internal connections,
including Wi-Fi, only to schools and libraries entitled to the highest
discount levels. In funding year 2012, for instance, the program
committed approximately $800 million for internal connections and was
only able to fund applicants at the 90 percent discount level. As a
result, nearly 60 percent of that funding went to urban applicants--
almost double the share of students in urban schools nationwide. In
2013, for the first time ever, no E-rate support was available for
internal connections.
53. By contrast, the E-rate program has always been able to meet
demand for services that provide connectivity to schools and libraries.
However, only about half of the $2.4 billion E-rate budget is used to
support priority one funding requests focused on broadband connectivity
to schools and libraries.
54. In short, the E-rate program has become increasingly ill-
equipped to meet the demands of the modern classroom and library.
Therefore, we now act to modernize E-rate to ensure more equitable,
reliable support for Wi-Fi networks, and other internal connections
supporting broadband services, within schools and libraries. While we
focus in this Report and Order on providing funding for internal
connections, we remain committed to ensuring schools and libraries have
high-speed connections to their buildings. In order to help ensure E-
rate funding is available to support high-speed broadband to and within
schools and libraries, we also eliminate support for certain legacy,
non-broadband services to help free up funding for these internal
broadband connections. We begin, however, with a short review of our
legal authority to set the list of E-rate supported services and define
the mechanisms of E-rate support.
A. Legal Authority
55. Sections 254(c)(1), (c)(3), (h)(1)(B), and (h)(2) of the
Communications Act collectively grant the Commission broad and flexible
authority to set the list of
[[Page 49167]]
services that will be supported for eligible schools and libraries, as
well as to design the specific mechanisms of support. This authority
reflects Congress's recognition that technology needs are constantly
``evolving'' in light of ``advances in telecommunications and
information technologies and services.''
56. In creating the E-rate program in 1997, in the Universal
Service First Report and Order, 62 FR 32862, June 17, 1997, the
Commission designated all commercially available telecommunications
services as services eligible for support (or discounts) under the E-
rate program. At the same time, the Commission determined that it could
provide E-rate support for additional, non-telecommunications services,
particularly Internet access, email, and internal connections, provided
by both telecommunications carriers and non-telecommunications
carriers. The Commission reasoned that such services enhance access to
advanced telecommunications and information services for public and
non-profit elementary and secondary school classrooms and libraries.
57. We update this eligible services framework for today's needs.
Revisiting our approach to this issue is consistent with 254(c)(1)'s
definition of universal service as an ``evolving level'' of service,
which the Commission must revisit ``periodically,'' ``taking into
account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and
services.'' We are also guided by section 254(h)(2)(A)'s directive that
we ``enhance, to the extent technically feasible and economically
reasonable, access to advanced telecommunications and information
services'' for schools and libraries.
58. Taken together, and considered in light of the Commission's
``responsibility to be a prudent guardian of the public's resources,''
these provisions lead us to take a more focused approach to the
definition of E-rate eligible services today than was adopted in 1997.
In particular, based on the record of this E-rate modernization
proceeding, and as described in more detail, we find that E-rate
support should be transitioned to focus specifically on those
telecommunications and information services, including associated
inside wiring, necessary to support broadband to and within schools and
libraries. The Commission has long supported these types of services,
and we think it clear that the statute authorizes their support.
Section 254(c)(1) and (c)(3) each provide ample authority for the
support of broadband telecommunications services, and sections
254(c)(3), (h)(1)(B), and (h)(2) provide authority to support advanced
telecommunications and information services, including associated
inside wiring.
59. At the same time, in order to focus E-rate funding on these
services, we must redirect funding away from services that are less
essential to education, less directly tied to educational purposes,
and/or more likely to be affordable without E-rate support than when
the program began, including fixed and mobile voice service. The
statute also amply supports this decision. Even if the E-rate fund was
not capped at its current level, we have a responsibility to be prudent
stewards of universal service funds, knowing that that those funds are
ultimately paid for by consumers. Because the amount of available E-
rate funding is finite, we must make thoughtful decisions about what
services are not just permissible to support, but are the most
essential to support for schools and libraries. We have relied on the
record to inform these choices.
60. As we focus E-rate support on high-speed broadband, we
recognize that we will ultimately reach a point where E-rate no longer
supports voice service, which we have defined as the 254(c)(1)
supported service for purposes of the High Cost (Connect America Fund)
and Lifeline programs. But nothing in section 254(c)(1) or elsewhere
bars the Commission from establishing different supported services for
different elements of the overall Universal Service Fund.
61. Indeed, in establishing the definition of the
telecommunications services that are supported by the Federal universal
service support mechanisms, the Commission is charged with considering
the extent to which the telecommunications services meet the criteria
section 254(c)(1)(A) through (D). This list of criteria implies that
the definition of supported services can vary depending on the
particular universal service program at issue. For example, section
254(c)(1)(A) requires the Commission, in designating supported services
to consider the extent to which services ``are essential to education,
public health, or public safety.'' Congress recognized that
telecommunications services deemed essential for education (and by
extension the E-rate program) may well not be the same as
telecommunications services essential for health (or the Rural Health
Care program). Likewise, what is consistent with the public interest,
convenience and necessity in section 254(c)(1)(D) could vary depending
on the specific universal service program at issue.
62. Moreover, reading section 254(c)(1) to bar the Commission from
establishing different eligible services for different universal
service programs would place section 254(c)(1) in tension with section
254(b), which requires the Commission to ensure that rates charged to
consumers nationwide are ``just, reasonable, and affordable,'' and
therefore to keep universal service contributions, typically passed
through in customers' rates, as low as possible. We think the better
reading of 254(c)(1) provides the Commission authority to support
services in more granular ways, such as only in the specific USF
programs where the Commission concludes that such a definition of
supported services is warranted after considering the (c)(1) factors,
and thereby minimize the overall USF burden on consumers who pay into
the Fund.
63. Finally, in the sections that follow we change to some extent
the mechanisms by which E-rate support is allocated and the discount
levels provided under the program. Sections 254(c) and 254(h) give the
Commission broad authority to design these mechanisms and set discount
rates at the level ``appropriate and necessary to ensure affordable
access to and use of'' E-rate supported services. This authority amply
supports the changes we make here.
B. Providing More Equitable Funding for Broadband Within Schools and
Libraries
64. In this section, we focus on providing schools and libraries
more equitable access to funding for Wi-Fi networks and other internal
connections that allow high-speed connectivity within schools and
libraries. We begin by designating internal connections that support
broadband connectivity as ``category two'' services, rather than
``priority two'' services in recognition of the importance of Wi-Fi
networks in connecting students and library patrons. In the short term,
in order to provide schools and libraries more access to category two
funds over the next two funding years, we accept the recommendation of
commenters who suggest that we focus the additional E-rate funds
identified by the Bureau earlier this year on internal connections.
Consistent with this focus, and with the record in this proceeding on
the funding needs for Wi-Fi and other internal connections, we also set
an annual budget target of $1 billion for category two services. Next,
we increase the minimum contribution rate for these
[[Page 49168]]
category two services from 10 to 15 percent to encourage applicants to
pursue the most cost-effective options. For applicants that apply for
category two support during the next two funding years, we also test
reasonable maximum per-student and per-library pre-discount budgets for
category two services in order to ensure greater access to category two
funding sufficient to deploy robust LANs and WLANs. Finally, we update
our rules regarding eligible services to align with this new focus on
providing E-rate support to services necessary for broadband
connectivity and direct the Bureau to update the ESL accordingly.
1. Providing Support for Internal Connections
65. As an initial matter, we change the E-rate program's existing
priority funding nomenclature. We agree with commenters that schools
and libraries should take a ``whole network'' approach to planning
their purchase of E-rate eligible services that bring connectivity both
to the building and to devices. In place of the priority nomenclature,
we designate the services needed to support broadband connectivity to
schools and libraries as ``category one'' services, and those needed
for broadband connectivity within schools and libraries as ``category
two'' services because we recognize that deploying internal connections
is an important element in connecting schools and libraries to high-
speed broadband.
66. For category one services, we are confident that the changes we
make to the E-rate program in this Report and Order will ensure that we
can continue funding all eligible category one requests, as we continue
to evaluate the long-term, overall program needs. For category two
services, the additional funding announced by the Bureau earlier this
year will allow the Commission to make $1 billion available over each
of the next two years. Building on the use of the identified program
funds for the next two years, and to give applicants longer-term
visibility into our approach, we also set a funding target of $1
billion annually for category two services on an ongoing basis. In
contrast to the current system, providing a target of $1 billion a year
annually for category two services will ensure greater access to E-rate
support for the Wi-Fi networks needed to connect 10 million students a
year to 21st Century educational tools. We recognize the concern of
some commenters, however, that, in the absence of a full review of
long-term program needs, a hard funding allocation for category two
services could put at risk our ability to provide sufficient support
for category one requests. For that reason, the budget we adopt will
remain a target, rather than a fixed allocation, as we continue to
evaluate the long-term program needs, and we direct USAC to shift funds
targeted for category two services to meet all eligible requests for
category one services, in any funding year in which demand for category
one services exceeds available funds. Given the availability of funding
for the next two years, the need for continued analysis of longer-term
trends in category one demand, as well as savings from the reforms we
adopt today and future additional reforms, we do not increase the
overall cap at this time, but seek additional comment on that issue in
the accompanying FNPRM.
67. If demand for internal connections exceeds the available
funding for category two services, we will prioritize access to
internal connections funding based on concentrations of poverty. Those
schools and libraries entitled to a higher discount will receive
internal connections funding ahead of those entitled to a lower
discount rate. If there is insufficient funding available to meet the
need at a particular discount rate for category two, we will prioritize
funding within a discount rate based on the percentage of students that
are eligible for free and reduced school lunches within each
applicant's school district. Funding for libraries will be prioritized
based on the percentage of free and reduced lunch eligible students in
the school district that is used to calculate the library's discount
rate. Funding for individual schools that are not affiliated
financially or operationally with a school district, such as private or
charter schools that apply individually, will be prioritized based on
each school's individual free-and-reduced student lunch eligible
population.
68. This prioritization method maintains the core of the existing
system that E-rate applicants are familiar with, and gives applicants
serving the highest poverty populations first access to funds, while
allowing us to fund within a discount-band even where funding is not
sufficient to reach all schools in that band. As explained, however,
and unlike the existing system, we adopt additional measures in an
effort to provide the opportunity for a broader range of applicants to
obtain funding for category two services.
69. In the event that requests for category one services are less
than the available funding and demand for category two services is
higher than the $1 billion target for category two services at the
close of the funding year window, the Bureau, working with OMD and
USAC, may redirect the excess funding to category two services in the
same funding year. If USAC does not commit the entire category two
budget for a funding year, or committed funds are not used or returned,
such funds may be carried forward to be used in subsequent funding
years. Each year such funds are available, we direct the Bureau,
working with OMD and USAC, to determine the proportion of carry-forward
funds to be used for category one and category two services.
2. Increasing the Minimum Applicant Contribution Rate for Category Two
Services
70. In order to ensure more equitable access to limited internal
connections funds, we will increase the minimum contribution applicants
must make towards E-rate supported category two purchases from 10 to 15
percent. We agree with commenters that requiring applicants to pay a
larger share of the cost of E-rate supported category two purchases
will spread available universal service funds more widely and increase
the incentive for applicants to find the most cost-effective options
that meet their internal connection needs.
71. In deciding to reduce the top discount rate for internal
connections from 90 percent to 85 percent, as with other changes we are
making to the E-rate program, we remain mindful of the challenges faced
by our most vulnerable schools and libraries in areas with the highest
levels of poverty. Taken together, the changes we make in this Report
and Order should benefit all schools and libraries, including those
receiving the highest discount rate. At the same time, we have taken a
measured approach in making changes that could negatively impact
applicants entitled to the highest discount rates. For example, we
reduce the top discount rate only for category two services, and only
by five percent. Likewise, we phase down support for voice services
over several years, to give applicants time to adjust to the loss of
support for such services. We also seek to counterbalance potential
reductions in funding by adopting proposals aimed at driving down the
prices all applicants will pay for E-rate supports services, including
increased pricing transparency and encouraging consortia purchasing and
bulk buying.
72. We expect that requiring higher matches will lead applicants
that have been eligible for 90 percent discounts for priority two
services to pursue lower prices for eligible category two services
[[Page 49169]]
more aggressively. Commenters note that applicants in the highest
discount level spend more in pre-discount dollars than those that have
a larger required match. Consistent with this analysis, E-rate Central,
a member of USAC's 2003 Task Force on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse, observes
``many examples of excessive spending by applicants at the highest
discount levels, often driven by overly aggressive sales efforts by
vendors targeting the poorest schools and libraries.'' Thus, as the
Iowa Department of Education argues, requiring applicants to ``[h]av[e]
more `skin in the game' . . . will guard against waste, fraud, and
abuse.'' We therefore set the highest discount level for category two
services at 85 percent. Applicants that would have been eligible for
discounts of 86 to 90 percent will now be eligible for an 85 percent
discount, and those eligible for a discount of 85 percent or less will
see no change. This decision is consistent with a similar change to the
Rural Health Care program that requires recipients of the new
Healthcare Connect fund to contribute 35 percent of the costs of the
support services, which the Commission found ``appropriately balances
the objectives of enhancing access to advanced telecommunications and
information services with ensuring fiscal responsibility and maximizing
the efficiency of the program.''
73. Although some commenters recommend even higher minimum
applicant contribution rates--20, 25 or even 30 percent (80, 75 or 70
percent maximum discount rates, respectively)--we recognize the
concerns voiced by some stakeholders that we not raise the net cost to
the most disadvantaged schools and libraries above levels that they can
afford. Therefore, in order to minimize the impact of this change on
these schools and libraries, we reduce the maximum discount rate only
by five percent and only for category two services as a first step. We
note that the per-student and per square foot applicant budgets for
funding year 2015 and 2016 described below mitigate some of the
concerns about overspending at this time. Other commenters agree that
the discount level should be changed, but ask for it to be a temporary
change. We see no reason, however, why the greater incentives for cost-
effective purchasing introduced by a slightly higher applicant match
would be appropriate in the near term but less so in the future; to the
contrary, we believe such incentives will remain important over time,
whereas changing the discount rate from year-to-year could distort
efficient decision making. Finally, because we are only reducing the
maximum discount rate by five percentage points, and only for category
two services, we make this change fully effective for funding year 2015
rather than phasing it in over multiple years.
3. Setting Applicant Budgets
74. In order to provide broader and more equitable support for
category two services, we adopt budgets for applicants who apply for
category two discounts during the next two funding years, as we
continue to evaluate long term program needs. Under this approach,
schools in districts that seek category two funding during funding
years 2015 or 2016 will be eligible to request E-rate discounts on
purchases of up to $150 (pre-discount) per student for category two
services over a five-year period. Likewise, library systems and
libraries that seek category two funding in funding years 2015 or 2016
may request E-rate discounts on purchases of up to $2.30 (pre-discount)
per square foot over a five-year period. If an applicant receives
funding for category two services in funding year 2015 or 2016, the
five-year budget will apply in the subsequent five funding years, in
lieu of the existing ``two-in-five'' rule.
75. We agree with commenters that E-rate must maintain its historic
focus on poverty in distributing support. Therefore, as described, we
will continue to use the discount matrix to calculate applicants' E-
rate support on their eligible costs, and applicants that have a higher
percentage of students eligible for NSLP will continue to receive a
larger proportion of support. For example, over a five-year period,
schools or districts at the 80 percent level will be able to request up
to $120 in E-rate support per student (an 80 percent discount on $150
in services) and be required to pay 20 percent of the cost of eligible
category two services that they purchase. Districts at the 20 percent
level will be able to seek up to $30 per student over a five-year
period, and be required to pay 80 percent of the costs of the eligible
category two services that they purchase. Similarly, a library with
10,000 square feet would be eligible for discounts on purchases of up
to $23,000, so a library at the 80 percent discount level could request
up to $18,400 in E-rate funding, while a library at the 20 percent
discount level could request up to $4,600 over a five-year period.
76. We recognize that this approach represents an important change
to our handling of applicant requests, and we are committed to ensuring
that the new five-year budgets not in any way compromise the program's
fundamental commitments to providing sufficient support and to
permitting local flexibility to address localized conditions, even as
they expand access to program funds. Therefore we will consider funding
years 2015 and 2016 to be a two-year test period, subject to further
review by the Commission.
a. Methodology
77. It would be impossible to identify, building-by-building, the
precise amount of funding each eligible school and library will require
in a given year to deploy or upgrade LANs and WLANs necessary to
support broadband services within their buildings. As commenters note,
building size, construction characteristics, where applicants are in
their upgrade cycle, and other factors make each deployment unique. We
can, however, establish a multi-year budget for category two services
that will serve our goal of ensuring affordable access to high-speed
broadband for schools and libraries by ensuring that (a) eligible
schools and libraries have greater access to E-rate funding for
internal connections necessary to distribute high-speed broadband
within their buildings and (b) that category two budgets will be
sufficient to ensure that eligible schools and libraries will be able
to afford the deployment or upgrade of those internal connections. In
setting such a budget, and the related budget-cycle, to fund internal
connections, we find support from a broad array of cost data in our
record.
78. Budget Cycle. As an initial matter, for applicants that receive
support in funding years 2015 or 2016, we establish a five-year budget
cycle for category two services. The record demonstrates that most
category two equipment has a typical lifecycle of approximately five
years. After that point, schools and libraries likely will need
additional support to upgrade their networks. This five-year budget
cycle will give applicants the flexibility to determine when to make
upgrades or changes.
79. School Budget. We set a pre-discount budget of $150 per student
over five years for schools. The record demonstrates that $2,500 per
classroom, which is equal to just under $150 per student based on a
ratio of 17 students per classroom, should be a sufficient budget to
deploy LANs/WLANs to elementary and secondary school classrooms and
common areas across the nation. States and districts submitted into our
record specific cost data for recent upgrades to state-of-the-art
deployments that were largely under this per-classroom amount.
Likewise,
[[Page 49170]]
participants at the E-rate Modernization Workshop described spending
differing amounts per classroom below this $2,500 range, from $1,300 to
an average of $1,900 per classroom. North Carolina, which is in the
middle of a statewide upgrade to Wi-Fi in its schools and libraries,
originally estimated the upgrade cost at $2,200 per classroom, and has
found actual deployment costs below this initial estimate, ranging from
approximately $2,100 per classroom for a comprehensive high school
upgrade to $900 per classroom for a more limited high school upgrade.
In some parts of Mississippi, the $500 cost per classroom is well below
this budget.
80. Based on NCES data for average class sizes and other sources,
commenters estimate that there are 18 to 20 students per classroom in
the United States, an estimate supported by consultations with district
technology officials and equipment vendors. Data in the record from a
sample of states and districts suggests that the true number is
slightly lower, however. In particular, statewide data from three
states representing almost five million students (approximately 10
percent of all students in the country) give an average of 17.8
students per classroom, likely because not all classrooms are in use at
all times of the day. Several individual districts also submitted
classroom counts, both rural and urban, with an average of 19.6
students per classroom. Combined, the state and district data provide
information on schools serving over 5.6 million students, with an
average of 18 students per classroom. We believe it makes sense to use
a relatively conservative estimate to ensure support levels are
sufficient for schools with smaller class sizes, such as smaller rural
schools. Accordingly, in translating the various per-classroom cost
estimates in our record into per-student costs (and vice-versa), we use
an estimate of 17 students per classroom. Dividing $2,500 by 17 gives a
per-student budget of $147, which we round up to $150 for simplicity of
administration.
81. A pre-discount budget of $150 per student over five funding
years, or $30 per student annually, is also consistent with the market
rate for elementary and secondary school managed Wi-Fi solutions,
described. Because these costs include installation and maintenance, we
find them to be a strong, market-driven representation of all-
inclusive, per-student LAN/WLAN deployment costs. For example,
Education Networks of America (ENA) currently provides managed Wi-Fi to
82 percent of public and charter high schools in Idaho for $21 per
student and teacher per year, including installation, management,
maintenance, and content filtering. C-Spire Fiber has several
deployments in Mississippi that average an annual cost of $19 to $29
per student for the managed Wi-Fi product it is piloting. In Ohio,
several Information Technology Centers offer a managed Wi-Fi service to
member school districts for $9-15 per student per year plus vendor
installation charges.
82. Commenters also submitted three different Wi-Fi cost models
into our record: The EdSuperHighway/CoSN ConnectED Cost Model, the
EdSuperHighway/CoSN Ongoing Cost Model, and the Cisco Model. The first
of these, the EdSuperHighway/CoSN ConnectED Cost Model, produces the
lowest estimate of required costs, producing a nationwide, average cost
of approximately $21 per student per year, well below the budget we set
here. This model assumes substantial existing infrastructure however,
the extent of which will vary greatly between districts, so it is
poorly suited to setting reasonable, nationwide budgets that will be
sustainable on an ongoing basis. We thus do not rely on this model.
83. The remaining models confirm our conclusion based on the record
evidence discussed that a pre-discount $150 per student five-year
budget we adopt here is reasonable. In contrast to the EdSuperHighway/
CoSN ConnectED Cost Model, the EdSuperHighway/CoSN Ongoing Cost Model
and the Cisco Model each attempt to estimate the full, ongoing costs of
internal connections deployments, averaged over the lifecycle of the
equipment used. Both models consist of two basic components: An overall
framework for estimating costs and a set of inputs for various costs
and equipment lifecycles. Although they differ somewhat, the frameworks
of both models appear to provide generally reasonable approaches to
estimating Wi-Fi deployment costs. The deployment and maintenance cost
estimates generated by the EdSuperHighway/CoSN Ongoing Cost Model and
the Cisco Model differ, with EdSuperHighway/CoSN estimating an annual
average cost of $869 per classroom, or $44 per student, and Cisco
estimating an annual average of $1,081 per classroom, or $59 per
student. The staff's sensitivity analysis of the key cost drivers,
however, shows that the range of reasonable cost estimates that can be
produced by the basic model frameworks is quite a bit wider than shown
by these two data points. Specifically, with plausible changes to a
small number of inputs, the models could support annual cost estimates
ranging from approximately $22 all the way to $75 per student. The $150
per student five-year budget we adopt here falls comfortably within
this range, albeit toward the lower end. The EdSuperHighway/CoSN
Ongoing Cost Model and the Cisco Model thus help confirm the
conclusions we draw from the diverse data on real world deployment
costs and the market-driven costs of managed Wi-Fi services, and, based
on these data sets, we are comfortable choosing an estimate toward the
lower end of the range produced by the models.
84. In sum, the record suggests $150 per student is a reasonable
budget, with many schools able to complete Wi-Fi deployments or
upgrades for less than that amount. Some schools may still choose to
spend more than $150 per student on their wireless deployments based on
individual design decisions, and nothing in the approach we adopt
prevents these decisions. Because the evidence shows that $150 per
student has proven sufficient in numerous deployments over several
geographic areas, however, we limit E-rate discounts to this budget.
85. In finding that $150 per student over five years should provide
sufficient support for category two services, we acknowledge that some
cost variation exists across or even within LAN or Wi-Fi networks. For
example, different building construction materials and variations in
labor costs can affect upgrade costs. However, in contrast to some
other costs, such as the costs of digging trenches for fiber
deployment, the majority of the costs of LAN and Wi-Fi networks are
commodity equipment costs, and therefore cost variation for efficient
upgrades is far less than that for connectivity to schools and
libraries. For the same reason, schools' costs for LAN or Wi-Fi
networks generally should scale linearly by the number of classrooms
(and therefore the number of students). We therefore conclude that a
per-student system of setting budgets for category two funding
(combined with a poverty-based discount rate and subject to the funding
floor, as discussed below) reasonably suits the manner in which
category two costs are incurred.
86. Library Budget. We set a pre-discount budget of $2.30 per
square foot over five years for libraries. Square footage provides a
simple to calculate, predictable, and reasonably accurate method of
setting budgets. Some commenters suggest that we should use patron
counts, average daily users, peak hour users, or other metrics to help
set reasonable internal connections budgets for libraries. We decline
to adopt any of these other suggested metrics at this time because (a)
we have identified no
[[Page 49171]]
available sources of data on these metrics for all libraries, and (b)
patron count, average daily users, and peak hour users may vary
dramatically and could be difficult to measure. As a result, using
these metrics at this time could reduce predictability, complicate the
application process, and slow down application reviews.
87. We choose $2.30 per square foot over five years as the budget
amount based on three data sets in our record. First, Vermont libraries
submitted state data showing the average equipment cost for deploying
wireless networks in 35 libraries in the state to be approximately
$0.81 per square foot. Second, the Urban Libraries Counsel (ULC) urged
the adoption of a budget of $4 per square foot for libraries, which was
supported by a number of libraries. Finally, the ALA filed an analysis
reporting per square foot costs for a variety of libraries in the range
of $1.79 to $2.29, which focused more specifically on E-rate eligible
costs.
88. Considering the range of all the cost data in the record and
recognizing that the $2.30 budget is a cap, not a grant, we find that
ALA's recommendation of $2.30 per square foot, taken with the $9,200
funding floor over five years as set below, is a reasonable budget
level. The ALA recommendation is based on a more thorough analysis and
specifically limited to E-rate eligible costs. While we note that a
number of libraries supported the ULC proposal, in general, these
commenters did not provide sufficiently detailed data for the
Commission to ensure that the estimates included only E-rate eligible
services. Further, four ULC member libraries that did provide more
specific cost data in response to requests from Commission staff
indicate a range of $0.82 to $3.08 per square foot. Even so, we
consider ULC's data in evaluating all the cost data in the record and
selecting the $2.30 per square foot funding budget.
89. Finally, we note that nationwide, schools have a median of
approximately 150-175 square feet per student. The $150 per-student
budget we adopt therefore equals about $0.86 to $1.00 per square foot
for schools. The budget we select for libraries today is substantially
above this amount. Therefore, we believe that $2.30 represents a
generous figure that will not unnecessarily restrict library funding.
Since our record suggests that usage density is unlikely to be
substantially higher in libraries than it is in schools, the school
costs in our record provide additional support for our finding that
ALA's proposed $2.30 per square foot funding budget will provide
sufficient support for library deployments.
90. Notwithstanding this analysis, we recognize that the library
data are less robust than that for schools. Accordingly, in the
accompanying FNPRM we seek additional comment on these issues.
91. Funding Floor. To ensure the category two budgets we set are
sufficient to meet the minimum demand that certain schools and
libraries might have regardless of size, we also establish a pre-
discount funding floor of $9,200 in category two support available for
each school or library. While WLAN costs tend to scale by classroom
size, schools and libraries will need the baseline funding to purchase
a router and/or switch, at least one small wireless access point, and
cabling necessary to deploy WLANs in even the smallest buildings. Our
record is not, however, as well developed on this point as we would
like, and so we take the conservative approach of adopting ALA's
recommended floor of $9,200, based on ALA's consultation with its
library members. Our record indicates that $9,200 should be sufficient
to cover the costs to purchase necessary equipment, cabling, and
installation for these libraries. We set the floor for schools at the
same level to ensure equity and because the costs of deployment in
small schools and libraries should be similar. Increasing the floor by
this amount has a minimal budget impact. Therefore, all schools and
libraries, including smaller schools and libraries, will be eligible to
request pre-discounted support for up to at least $9,200 for category
two services over any given five-year period.
92. Per-Entity Basis. Applicants will be required to seek support
for category two services on a school-by-school and library-by-library
basis, although school districts will use a single district-wide
discount rate for all of their schools, as will library systems for all
of their libraries. Under this approach, school districts, whether
public or made up of more than one independent school under central
control, will have the flexibility to request support for any school or
group of its schools each funding year, using the number of students in
any school getting LAN/WLAN upgrades to determine the maximum eligible
pre-discount amount in a given funding year for that school. This
flexibility will allow districts to decide how to sequence deployment
of LANs/WLANs based on their individual needs. For example, a large
district may choose to upgrade one fifth of its schools in each of the
five funding years, while a small district may request support to
upgrade all of its schools in one funding year. To the extent that a
district seeks or receives funding commitments for less than the
category two budget for E-rate support available to a school, it may
request additional category two E-rate support up to that budget in the
following four funding years. The costs for services shared by multiple
entities shall be divided between the entities for which support is
sought in that funding year. Likewise, library systems that include
multiple libraries will have the flexibility to request support for all
or a portion of their library branches each year, using the floor area
of the libraries being updated to determine the maximum budget
available each year.
93. Similarly, eligible schools that operate independently of a
public school district, such as a private or charter school, are
eligible for E-rate discounts on the purchase of eligible internal
connections services up to $150 per student (or a minimum of $9,200).
If an independently operated school seeks or receives less than the
maximum amount of internal connections E-rate support available to that
school in year one, it may request additional internal connections E-
rate support up to that maximum in the following four funding years.
Likewise, libraries that are not part of a library system may request
E-rate support for a pre-discount purchase of up to the greater of
$9,200 or $2.30 per square foot, and any amount less than that will be
available in the following four funding years. For example, a 10,000
square foot library may request support for a purchase of up to $23,000
over five years. If it seeks E-rate support for a purchase of $13,000
in the first funding year, it may request discounted support for
another $10,000 in eligible services over the next four years.
94. Application of Budgets to Funding Years 2015 and 2016 and Five-
Year Funding Cycle. The question of applicant budgets is closely linked
to the question of the long-term funding levels for category two
services. As described, at this time we set funding for category two as
a budget target rather than a firm allocation. In light of the funding
identified by the Bureau earlier this year, we are confident we can
meet this target for the next two funding years, and therefore we apply
the budget approach adopted here to those two funding years. We will
evaluate the longer-term application of this approach in conjunction
with our evaluation of the overall, longer-term program needs.
95. While the budget approach will only apply to applicants that
receive funding in funding years 2015 and 2016,
[[Page 49172]]
we clarify that the budget themselves are five-year budgets. In other
words, for schools in districts seeking funding in years 2015 and 2016,
we adopt a rolling funding cycle of five years for category two
services and remove the two-in-five rule that applied to priority two
internal connections. As explained, Wi-Fi equipment has a lifecycle of
approximately five years. Therefore, excluding any priority two support
received before funding year 2015, schools in districts that seek
category two support in funding years 2015 or 2016 will calculate their
available support budget as $150 per student, multiplied by their
discount, less any E-rate support received in the prior four years. In
the first funding year that an applicant requests category two support,
the full amount of the pre-discount $150 per student budget will be
available to request. In later years, applicants will calculate the
available budget based of $150 per student less any support received in
the prior four funding years. Applicants that receive support in
funding year 2015 will have $150 per student available divided over
funding years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Applicants that receive
support in funding year 2016, but not in funding year 2015, will have a
budget of $150 per student divided over funding years 2017, 2018, 2019,
and 2020. Likewise, libraries in library systems that receive support
in funding years 2015 or 2016 will calculate support over the five-year
funding cycle using the number of square feet less any support received
in the prior four funding years. This approach will allow schools and
libraries to plan for how best to upgrade their facilities, and plan
for future upgrades based on their own prior spending. In contrast,
adopting a shorter budget, such as a two-year budget, would create a
mismatch between the budget cycle and real equipment lifecycles, and
would likely encourage applicants to inefficiently front-load expenses
in the next two years.
b. Reasons for a Multi-Year Budget Approach
96. Our decision to limit applicants' total category two requests
based on a five-year budget reflects broad consensus in the record that
some reasonable limits on requests are necessary to spread support more
broadly than under the current system. In the E-rate Modernization
Public Notice, the Bureau outlined three options for such limits, and
invited comments on alternatives. The five-year budget that we adopt
here is a middle course between two of these options--an annual per-
student allocation and a one-in-five rotating funding schedule. After
carefully evaluating the arguments for these and other options, we
conclude that the approach we adopt today will bring several important
benefits to applicants and the program.
97. First, the approach we take to distribute category two funding
provides greater predictability. Since funding year 1999, applicants
have had no certainty from year-to-year that category two services
would be supported. As such, administrators, budget managers, and
technology planners have been discouraged from planning for E-rate
support for Wi-Fi in their schools and libraries because annual funding
was far from assured. Some commenters express concern regarding the
predictability of other approaches, such as a rotating approach or a
one-in-five approach. On the other hand, some commenters support an
allocation approach in order to provide needed certainty. Unlike in
previous years, when there was no funding for internal connections, or
funding went to connect a small percentage of the nation's students and
library patrons, the approach we adopt today provides greater
predictability and will be able to provide support for 10 million
students and thousands of libraries each year.
98. Second, the approach we adopt today maintains the E-rate
program's priority for the highest poverty schools and libraries. We
continue to use poverty measures when distributing support under this
approach. Applicants with the highest percentage of students eligible
for free and reduced lunch will receive a greater proportion of E-rate
support and be eligible earlier in the five-year cycle if demand
exceeds the annual budget for category two services.
99. At the same time, this approach guarantees a broader
distribution of funding for internal connections--adjusted as
appropriate to reflect greatest levels of poverty--by setting
reasonable limits on category two requests in order to deploy Wi-Fi
networks to a far greater number of eligible applicants. Many
applicants debate the costs and benefits of different distribution
approaches, but focus on a core principle that distribution must be
made more equitable. As we noted earlier, the existing priority two
methodology has resulted in E-rate funding for priority two services
being distributed only to schools and libraries with the highest
discount levels. Additionally, a disproportionate amount of available
funding has gone to urban schools. Commenters point out that some
proposals, like a one-in-five limitation, would not help to achieve a
more equitable distribution of support. Similarly, an increase in the
cap without these additional measures to encourage efficient purchasing
would not achieve more equitable distribution. This five-year budget
approach should provide sufficient support per student or per square
foot for far more schools and libraries to access needed funding, but
places a limit on less cost-efficient spending requests.
100. Importantly, this approach to funding category two
connectivity also provides flexibility to districts, schools, and
libraries to deploy and maintain Wi-Fi as best suits their own
circumstances. Many commenters argue that flexibility is essential for
setting reasonable budgets each year, and this five-year budget
approach allows applicants to decide the rate at which school networks
are updated. This approach allows applicants to plan how to deploy
their networks over five years, whether by requesting support for all
or just a portion of entities each year, or by purchasing a managed Wi-
Fi service through which a third party provider installs and manages
the necessary LAN and WLAN.
101. Finally, the approach we take today promotes cost-effective
purchasing by applicants while providing support that the record
demonstrates should be sufficient to support these badly needed
deployments. In the past, applicants at the top discount levels had an
incentive to overbuy or use less cost-effective network design. A limit
on category two support will encourage more cost-efficient purchasing.
102. In contrast to the approach we adopt here, we find the
alternative approaches that commenters suggest as well as those
outlined by the Bureau in the E-rate Modernization Public Notice--such
as maintaining the existing system but temporarily eliminating support
for applicants that have recently received support, a rotating schedule
of funding for different discount bands, or single-year budgets,
implemented with or without the existing discount matrix--would each be
less effective at solving the structural problems with how the E-rate
program has historically funded internal connections. For instance, as
pointed out by commenters, both the rotating eligibility approach and
the one-in-five approach outlined by the Bureau in the E-rate
Modernization Public Notice lack certainty for schools and libraries
absent incentives for more cost-efficient purchasing in the highest
discount bands, and would likely fail to distribute support more
broadly than is the case today. In contrast, providing
[[Page 49173]]
applicants with a constant, single-year budget would fail to account
for the reality that individual applicants will have different needs in
different years, depending on where they are in their upgrade cycle.
c. Other Applicant Budget Issues
103. Student Count. We move to a district-wide calculation of
applicants' discount rates. In order to determine the budget available
each funding year, districts should calculate the number of students
per school at the time that they calculate their district-wide discount
rate annually. We recognize that there will be some instances, such as
the construction of a new school, that will make calculating the number
of students more difficult for districts. We will permit schools and
school districts to provide a reasonable estimate of the number of
students who will be attending a school under construction during a
particular funding year and seek support for the estimated number of
students. However, if an applicant overestimates the number of students
who enroll in that school, it must return to USAC by the end of the
next funding year any funding in excess of that to which it was
entitled based on the actual number of enrolled students. This means a
school at the 80 percent discount level, which estimates that it will
have 1,000 students, may request E-rate support of up to $120,000. If,
however, enrollment after the school opens is only 750 students, the
school will have to return any committed support exceeding $90,000. We
note, however, that there may be funding years in which an entity loses
students and therefore spent more than its available budget in the
prior four funding years. In these instances, we will not require
repayment of any E-rate support, but there will be no available funding
for that funding year. Students who attend multiple schools, such as
those that attend educational service agencies (ESAs) part-time, may be
counted by both schools in order to ensure appropriate LAN/WLAN
deployment for both buildings.
104. Cost-Effective Purchasing. Our goal in setting a per-student
limit is to ensure schools and libraries can purchase the internal
connections they need while discouraging them from purchasing
unnecessary equipment or using an inefficient network design. At the
same time, we emphasize that the pre-discount $150 budget per student
is not a block grant. Applicants may only request funding for discounts
on eligible category two services, and schools must continue to pay the
non-discounted portion of the supported services. These requirements
remain in place. We will not, however, second guess schools' and
libraries' decisions to purchase additional equipment or services with
other sources of funding if they determine that it is the most cost-
effective service offering for what they have decided they need.
105. Rural Remote Applicants. We decline to adopt the request made
by some commenters that we provide additional category two funding or a
rebuttable presumption allowing USAC or the Bureau to waive the budget
for applicants in rural remote areas at this time. As described, we
find that LAN/WLAN costs are largely based on the costs of equipment,
and therefore tend to have consistent prices nationwide. To the extent
there are price variations, it is often the case that internal
connections upgrades are less expensive in rural areas because labor
costs are lower, permitting is easier, and buildings are newer and/or
easier to renovate. Therefore, we conclude that the benefits of
additional funding for rural remote areas are outweighed by the added
administrative burden and the additional costs to the Fund of providing
such additional support.
4. Setting an Annual Funding Target for Internal Connections
106. Based on the five-year school and library budgets we find
sufficient above, total category two pre-discount requests over the
next five-years will amount to no more than $8.8 billion to deploy LANs
and WLANs in schools and libraries throughout the country. After
accounting for the non-discounted share paid by applicants, with a 15
percent minimum applicant contribution, we estimate that E-rate
discounts will support approximately 67 percent of the total pre-
discount cost of $8.8 billion for eligible category two services. In
addition, we estimate that there will be schools and libraries that do
not seek funding or request less than the full budgeted amount to
upgrade and maintain their LANs/WLANs over time. We therefore reduce
the five-year budget by approximately 15 percent to avoid over-
budgeting and set the five-year budget at $5 billion, plus annual
inflation adjustments. We adopt an annual target of $1 billion, plus
any annual inflationary changes, for category two services, which is
equal to one-fifth of the five-year estimate of E-rate support. In
addition to this annual budget, the Bureau may allocate any available
carry forward funding to meet category two demand.
5. Focusing Support on Broadband
a. Core Components of Broadband Internal Connections
107. In order to help deploy LANs/WLANs necessary to permit digital
learning in schools and libraries throughout the nation, we focus the
category two ESL on broadband. With one narrow exception, we limit
internal connections support to those broadband distribution services
and equipment needed to deliver broadband to students and library
patrons: Routers, switches, wireless access points, internal cabling,
racks, wireless controller systems, firewall services, uninterruptable
power supply, and the software supporting each of these components used
to distribute high-speed broadband throughout school buildings and
libraries. Some form of each of these services has previously been
designated as eligible for E-rate support, and we find they are
necessary to ensure delivery of high-speed broadband services to
students and library patrons via LANs/WLANs. We do not limit these
eligible services by form, and therefore agree that equipment that
combines functionality, like routing and switching, is also eligible.
Similarly, we recognize that some functionalities can be virtualized in
the cloud, such as cloud wireless controllers, and therefore will
permit such services to be eligible for purchase by schools and
libraries.
108. To focus support on only those internal connections necessary
to enable high-speed broadband connectivity, beginning in funding year
2015, we eliminate E-rate support for the priority two components that
had been in the following ESL entries: Circuit Cards/Components;
Interfaces, Gateways, Antennas; Servers; Software; Storage Devices;
Telephone Components, Video Components, as well as voice over IP or
video over IP components, and the components, such as virtual private
networks, that are listed under Data Protection other than firewalls
and uninterruptible power supply/battery backup. In recognition of our
need to be a ``prudent guardian of the public's resources,'' we find
that eliminating these priority two components from the ESL ensures
that there is more E-rate support available to deploy the LANs/WLANs
needed to improve digital learning in schools and libraries. It is also
consistent with section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Act, which requires that
support to schools and libraries improve access to advanced services in
a manner that is ``technically feasible'' and ``economically
reasonable.'' We direct the Bureau to release for comment a draft ESL
for funding year 2015
[[Page 49174]]
consistent with this Report and Order, and encourage applicants to
carefully review the eligible components included in the modernized
category two section in that draft ESL. Some components that had been
listed in the ESL as priority two may be relocated or described in
updated or more generic terminology.
109. Also, despite support from some commenters, we decline at this
time to designate further network security services and other proposed
services in order to ensure internal connections support is targeted
efficiently at the equipment that is necessary for LANs/WLANs. Many
commenters agreed that a limited list of eligible services would help
ensure available funds are targeted and therefore available to more
applicants. As we noted, we leave the record open on these services to
allow for further comment as we evaluate the changes in the first
funding year.
b. Basic Maintenance, Managed Wi-Fi, and Caching
110. Basic Maintenance. For funding years 2015 and 2016, we will
continue to provide support for basic maintenance services subject to
each school or library's overall budget on E-rate eligible category two
services. In the E-rate Modernization NPRM, the Commission proposed
phasing out support for basic maintenance because the same high-
discount school districts received ample funding, while most school
districts received none. Commenters point out however, that basic
maintenance is needed to ensure networks operate properly, particularly
as networks become more complicated. We believe that we can achieve the
stated goal of broader funding distribution through other means,
including a reasonable and equitable limit on the total amount of E-
rate support available per student and per square foot which will
discipline districts and libraries in basic maintenance purchasing
decisions. In particular, applicants are unlikely to seek support for
unnecessary basic maintenance given these limits on the total amount
available, but providing support to ensure these networks function
effectively may aid those districts with limited resources. Support
will only be available for maintenance on equipment and services on the
ESL and not for any of the legacy services phased out in this Report
and Order.
111. Managed Wi-Fi. In light of the applicant budgets for funding
years 2015 and 2016, we are persuaded by commenters who argue that
managed Wi-Fi, which we call managed internal broadband services in the
rules to cover the operation, management, or monitoring of a LAN or
WLAN, should be eligible for internal connections support. In the past,
applicants could seek internal connections support only for the
purchase of internal connections and basic maintenance. Unlike the
traditional approach to internal connections, for managed Wi-Fi service
contracts, schools and libraries obtain LANs/WLANs as a service for a
period of three to five years from a third party who manages the entire
system, providing operations and maintenance for the life of the
contract. In other cases, the school or library may own the equipment,
but have a third party manage it for them.
112. The record demonstrates that applicants would benefit from
greater flexibility to choose among managed Wi-Fi options. In
particular, the variations of managed Wi-Fi services can provide
substantial benefits and cost savings to many schools and libraries,
particularly small districts and libraries without a dedicated
technology director available to deploy and manage advanced LANs/WLANs
quickly and efficiently. Therefore, pursuant to our authority under
section 254 of the Act, we find that providing support for managed
internal broadband services, including managed Wi-Fi, will ``enhance .
. . access to advanced telecommunications and information services''
for schools and libraries, and we direct the Bureau to include managed
internal broadband services on the ESL for funding years 2015 and 2016.
113. Under the five-year applicant budget approach we adopt, a
district, school, or library will be able to seek annual support for a
managed Wi-Fi service, up to an average pre-discount rate cost of $30
per student per year or one-fifth of the budget available to libraries
based on floor area. This is consistent with the price of managed Wi-Fi
services in the market today and limits the likelihood of waste or
abuse in these managed Wi-Fi contracts. As noted below, we will allow
districts and libraries to sign multi-year contracts, but we will not
make multi-year commitments. Our short-term budget will be sufficient
to fund these smaller multi-year contracts and we will continue to
evaluate whether additional changes are needed in the long-term, but
emphasize that there is no guarantee of funding.
114. We disagree with commenters who argue that managed Wi-Fi
should be a category one service. Despite our recognition that
virtualization and management may send some amount of information
beyond the walls of the school or library building in order to manage
the internal networks, we find that services used to distribute
bandwidth throughout the school are internal connections services. We
therefore remove the presumption in our rules that such a service is
not an internal connection.
115. Competitive bidding rules still apply to procurement of
managed Wi-Fi services. We encourage districts to request bids in
technologically neutral ways and compare the cost-effectiveness of bids
for self-provisioned networks with those for managed Wi-Fi contracts.
We also encourage schools and libraries considering managed Wi-Fi to
evaluate the value of joining a consortium of schools and libraries to
increase their buying power and drive down costs.
116. We also clarify that E-rate support for managed Wi-Fi is
limited to those expenses or portions of expenses that directly support
and are necessary for the broadband connectivity within schools and
libraries. Eligible managed Wi-Fi expenses include the management and
operation of the LAN/WLAN, including installation, activation, and
initial configuration of eligible components, and on-site training on
the use of eligible equipment. Eligible managed Wi-Fi expenses do not
include a managed voice service, for example. For bundled pricing that
includes eligible and ineligible expenses, applicants are required to
cost allocate eligible from ineligible services to ensure only eligible
services are supported.
117. Finally, we delegate to the Bureau the authority to determine
how best to interpret managed services for the purposes of the ESL as
we gain experience with funding of these services through the E-rate
program. Wireless access as a managed service is a market that is still
being developed, and we believe it will facilitate the efficient and
effective support of these services to provide the Bureau flexibility
to adjust our approach as this market develops. As always, parties may
appeal any Bureau decision to the full Commission.
118. Caching. Due in part to the applicant budgets for funding
years 2015 and 2016 limiting waste or abuse, we agree with commenters
who argue that caching functionality should be eligible for internal
connections support. Caching functionality enables the local storage of
information so that the information is accessible more quickly than if
it is transmitted across a network from a distant server. By placing
previously requested information in temporary storage, caching
functionality can, in certain
[[Page 49175]]
circumstances, optimize network performance, and potentially result in
more efficient use of E-rate funding. The record indicates that caching
functionality can be an integral component of some LANs and WLANs. As
commenters point out, caching can provide a more affordable way to
achieve bandwidth goals. This is consistent with the goal we adopt in
this Report and Order, as well as the Commission's authority to ensure
affordable access to E-rate supported services. As such, we disagree
with commenters who argue that caching functionality should not be
supported by E-rate funds. Instead, we designate caching functionality
as an eligible service that ``enhance(s), to the extent technically
feasible and economically reasonable, access to advanced
telecommunications and information services'' for schools and
libraries. As with the core components of broadband internal
connections, we agree that equipment that combines caching
functionality with other functionalities is also eligible. However,
equipment that combines caching functionality with an ineligible
functionality must be cost allocated. We therefore delegate to the
Bureau the authority to define caching functionality, as well as the
necessary software or equipment, such as caching servers, for the
purposes of the funding years 2015 and 2016 Eligible Services List. As
always, parties may appeal any Bureau decision to the full Commission.
119. Eligibility After Funding Years 2015 and 2016. We make these
determinations about eligibility in light of the applicant budgets we
set out that mitigate some of our concerns about waste or abuse. We
therefore direct the Bureau to include basic maintenance, managed
internal broadband services, and caching functionality on the ESL for
funding years 2015 and 2016. The Commission will evaluate the benefits
and drawbacks of these eligibility determinations in future funding
years as it continues its work modernizing the program. Absent
Commission action, in funding year 2017 and in subsequent funding
years, support for basic maintenance, managed internal broadband
services, and caching functionality, as an internal connection, will be
available only to those applicants that received support in funding
years 2015 and 2016 and are operating under a five-year applicant
budget.
6. Other Issues
120. Category Two Installation Can Begin on April 1. We also amend
our rules for category two non-recurring services to permit applicants
to seek support for category two eligible services purchased on or
after April 1, three months prior to the start of funding year on July
1. This will provide schools with the flexibility to purchase equipment
in preparation for the summer recess and provide the maximum amount of
time during the summer to install these critical networks. We agree
with commenters who note that the last day of school is often in May or
June and schools need to be able to use the entire summer recess to
ensure the networks are ready when students return to school. This is
consistent with our previous decision to allow advance installation and
construction under certain conditions.
121. Administration. In accordance with this section, we make
necessary changes to Sec. Sec. 54.500, 54.502, 54.505, and 54.507 of
our rules. We recognize that these represent major changes to the
structure and distribution of support for internal connections. Because
unanticipated technical or operational issues may arise that require
prompt action, we reaffirm the delegation of authority to the Bureau to
interpret our rules ``as necessary to ensure that support for services
provided to schools and libraries . . . operate to further our
universal service goals.''
C. Phasing Down and Ending Support for Legacy and Other Non-Broadband
Services
122. In funding year 2013, approximately 50 percent of priority one
E-rate funding was committed to high-speed broadband services, while
approximately one third went to fixed voice and mobile services.
Phasing down support for voice services and eliminating support for
certain legacy services will allow us to focus E-rate program funding
on the high-speed broadband needed by schools to enable digital
learning and by all libraries to meet the broadband needs of their
patrons. After the first two years of the phase down, the Bureau will
issue a report evaluating the impact of the reduction in support for
voice services. If the Commission takes no further action, the voice
services phase down will continue.
1. Phasing Down Support for Voice Services
123. Many commenters support reducing E-rate support for voice
services to focus the E-rate program on broadband. We agree that voice
services, while important for schools and libraries, are not as
essential as high-speed broadband is for meeting the educational needs
of students and library patrons. Instead of immediately eliminating
support for voice services, we will reduce voice support each funding
year by subtracting the discount rate applicants receive for voice
services by 20 percentage points every funding year. In funding year
2015, the discounts applicants receive for voice services will be
reduced by 20 percentage points from their discount rates for other
eligible services, and in funding year 2016, the discounts applicants
receive for voice services will be 40 percentage points lower than
their discount rates for other eligible services. In each subsequent
funding year, the discounts applicants receive for voice services will
be reduced by an additional 20 percentage points. Over the first two
years of the phase down for voice services support, we direct the
Bureau to evaluate the impact of the phase down on eligible schools and
libraries and study the transition of eligible schools and libraries to
VoIP services and issue a report to the Commission as we continue to
reduce voice support by 20 percentage points each year. If, by the
opening of the funding year window for funding year 2018, the
Commission takes no further action, the voice phase down will continue.
124. Voice services have been eligible for E-rate program funding
since the Commission determined that the E-rate program should support
all commercially available telecommunications services in the Universal
Service First Report and Order. When the Commission established the E-
rate program in 1997, the goal was to provide schools and libraries
discounts on the broadest class of telecommunications services and
advanced services available at that time, and to provide schools and
libraries the flexibility to purchase new technologies as they became
available. However, the options for Internet access then were generally
limited to dial up modem services offered over POTS lines, and the data
links provided by T-1 and T-3 lines.
125. Today, a much broader array of high-speed broadband services
are available to and needed by schools and libraries to support modern
digital learning initiatives. Moreover, support for voice services
today consumes approximately one third of E-rate commitments while many
schools and libraries are unable to access the funding they need for
internal connections to provide high-speed broadband throughout schools
and libraries. In order to meet our goal of funding high-speed
broadband services to support digital learning in schools
[[Page 49176]]
and robust connectivity for all libraries, we conclude that we can no
longer continue to fund voice services at the same discounts rates as
applied to other eligible services that provide broadband access.
Instead, we will gradually reduce E-rate funding for voice services and
shift these funds to support those services that provide high-speed
broadband. Accordingly, we remove the reference to E-rate supporting
``all commercially available telecommunications services'' in Sec.
54.502(a) of our rules so that it is clear to applicants that the
telecommunications services that are supported by E-rate are listed in
the ESL, rather than potentially sending a confusing message that any
telecommunications service available on the market is eligible for E-
rate discounts. This is important now that we are phasing down support
for voice services and eliminating support for some of the services
associated with telephone service as explained herein. We also add to
the rules our schedule for phasing down support for voice services.
126. We recognize that many schools and libraries consider E-rate
support for voice services an important part of their overall budgets.
However, several factors should help ameliorate the impacts of
gradually phasing down support for these services. First, voice is now
a competitive offering in many areas, and the availability of VoIP
services, particularly for those with broadband, provides a cost-
effective option for many schools and libraries. This expansion of
competition, particularly from VoIP offerings, represents a substantial
shift since the E-rate program was created in 1997. Whereas changes in
the voice market are reducing the costs of voice service over time, the
shortage of funding for broadband services has increasingly become an
impediment to balancing all of the Commission's requirements under
section 254(h). Second, because we will initially reduce the maximum
discount available for voice services to 70 percent in 2015, and 50
percent in 2016, our approach strikes a balance between those
commenters supporting elimination of discounts for voice services with
those school and library commenters that stressed the importance of
retaining some level of support over a defined period of time. Third,
as a result of the other measures we take in this Report and Order, the
applicants affected by this change will have opportunities to seek
funding for broadband infrastructure that may not have been available
to them previously. To some degree, this may offset changes in their
overall budgets. Finally, our decision does not alter the Commission's
requirement that providers of eligible services must provide supported
services at a lowest corresponding price (LCP). While voice service
remains a supported service, the Commission's LCP rule serves as a
safeguard for affordability because service providers cannot submit
bids for or charge E-rate applicants a price above the LCP for E-rate
services; E-rate discounts are then applied to a service provider's
LCP.
127. Several stakeholders suggest that in lieu of gradual
transition, we give schools one or two years more of full support for
voice service, but then eliminate support for voice altogether in
funding years 2016 or 2017. While that approach might benefit
recipients seeking voice support for the next one or two funding years,
it would eliminate funding for voice services altogether before the
Commission has had a chance to study the impact of the gradual phase
down of support for voice services on eligible schools and libraries.
The approach we take today is more gradual while allowing us to begin
redirecting E-rate funding to broadband next year. We agree that our
revised interpretation of section 254 requires us to redefine eligible
services and shift support away from voice services and towards
broadband services, but eliminating support in 2016 or 2017 would cause
a more abrupt change in schools and library budgets in those funding
years, which we believe many applicants would find difficult to
absorb--particularly those serving the highest poverty communities.
Phasing down support for voice services over several funding years
preserves some funding for applicants at least for the next several
funding years, with the most economically disadvantaged schools and
libraries receiving the highest discounts as they consider alternatives
in the marketplace.
128. In the E-rate Modernization Public Notice, the Bureau sought
comment on phasing out support for voice services by 15 percentage
points per funding year. We now conclude that a per-year reduction of
20 percentage points is appropriate because we find a more
straightforward percentage point decrease should be easier for
applicants to calculate, and will help ensure that sufficient funding
for is available for supported services. Beginning in funding year
2015, when the maximum discount rate for category one services will be
90 percent, eligible applicants shall receive a maximum discount rate
of 70 percent for voice services. We disagree with those commenters who
argue that reductions will be difficult for applicants to understand
and for USAC to administer. The discount rate for voice services will
be based on an applicant's already established discount rate and will
require only a simple 20 percentage point subtraction from the discount
rate any applicant would otherwise be required to calculate to receive
support from the program. We change the FCC Form 471 to enable
applicants to seek support for voice services using a separate funding
request number (FRN) from other eligible services starting in funding
year 2015. Combining voice and non-voice services in a single FRN would
cause delays in processing if USAC had to separate out the services
during the application review process.
129. The reduced discount rates for voice services will apply to
all applicants and all costs incurred for the provision of telephone
services and circuit capacity dedicated to providing voice services
including: Local phone service, long distance service, plain old
telephone service (POTS), radio loop, 800 service, satellite telephone,
shared telephone service, Centrex, wireless telephone service such as
cellular, and interconnected VoIP. Although there was some support in
the record for excluding VoIP from the voice services phase down, we
agree with those commenters that assert that retaining a higher level
of funding for VoIP services while reducing the discount rate only for
non-IP voice services would provide VoIP providers a competitive
advantage in serving schools and libraries. Because the marginal cost
of delivering VoIP services should be lower once schools and libraries
have robust broadband, we expect the price of these services to
continue to drop over the coming years, alleviating the need to retain
higher discounts for VoIP funding. Similarly, a few commenters argue
that we should retain support for wireless telephone services, while
others support eliminating wireless telephone services in funding year
2015. As with VoIP services, eliminating support for wireless telephone
service in 2015, or subjecting wireless telephone services to a
separate phase out track, would provide non-wireless providers a
competitive advantage over wireless providers in serving schools and
libraries.
130. Some commenters argue that, because the USF/ICC Transformation
Order, 76 FR 76623, December 8, 2011, included voice telephony service
in the definition of universal service, we are compelled to include
voice telephony as an eligible service for E-rate support
[[Page 49177]]
under sections 254(c)(3) and 254(h)(1)(B) of the Act. However, as
explained, nothing in section 254(c)(1) bars the Commission from
establishing different supported services for different elements of the
overall Universal Service Fund, and in this Report and Order,
consistent with the purpose of the E-rate program, we find that it is
necessary and appropriate to phase down voice services.
131. During the initial two years of the phase down of support for
voice services, we direct the Bureau to study the impact of these
discount reductions for voice support on E-rate recipients and to study
the transition of eligible schools and libraries to VoIP services. The
Bureau shall report its findings to the Commission by October 1, 2017,
after completion of funding year 2016. If, at the conclusion of this
study, no further action is pursued by the Commission before the
application filing window opens for funding year 2018, the phase down
will continue.
2. Eliminating Support for Telephone Features, Outdated Services, and
Non-Broadband Services That Do Not Facilitate High-Speed Broadband
132. Pursuant to sections 254(c)(1), (c)(3), (h)(1)(B), and (h)(2)
of the Act, we eliminate support for other legacy and non-broadband
services effective for funding year 2015. Our decision to stop
supporting these services reverses prior Commission and USAC decisions,
however, we find many of these services to be important, but not
essential to education, and E-rate funding is not sufficient to support
these services at the risk of not being able to fund the services
identified herein that advance our program goals. Within the
Commission's authority under section 254 of the Communications Act to
designate telecommunications and additional services rests our equal
authority to withdraw services from eligibility, especially as the
needs of schools and libraries evolve. The record supports our
decision.
133. Beginning in funding year 2015, we will no longer provide E-
rate support for components of telephone service, outdated services
such as paging and directory assistance, and services that may use
broadband but do not provide it, including email, voice mail, and web
hosting. Applicants may continue to seek support for individual data
plans and air cards, but only when they can demonstrate, consistent
with our current rules, that the purchase of such services is the most
cost-effective way to connect students on school premises or library
locations to the Internet.
a. Telephone Features and Outdated Telephone Services
134. The record supports eliminating E-rate support for paging, and
telephone service components such as text messaging and directory
assistance beginning in funding year 2015. There is widespread
agreement among commenters that paging service is largely outdated and
can be retired from funding. Similarly, there is agreement that the
features listed as ``Telephone Service Components'' should no longer
receive E-rate support. The Telephone Service Components to be removed
from the ESL are directory assistance charges, text messaging, custom
calling services, direct inward dialing, 900/976 call blocking, and
inside wire maintenance plans.
135. Although a few commenters argue that paging serves an
educational purpose because sometimes it is the only way to reach a key
staff member in an emergency, other commenters asserted that paging is
not really critical, and has been replaced by other services.
Similarly, a few commenters argue that we should continue to support
text messaging because students prefer it for quick communication, and
it is used for a variety of work related tasks for administrators and
teachers in way that does not disrupt the classroom. These are all
valid assertions and while we recognize that these services are worthy
to certain applicants, we conclude that continuing to fund them diverts
funding away from the high-speed broadband services that have become
essential to schools and libraries.
136. Notably, those commenters recommending a longer adjustment
period for the phase down of funding for voice services did not request
a commensurate phase down timeline for telephone components, or assert
that a transition period would be critical for schools and libraries.
This is consistent with our view that a protracted phase out for
telephone components is not necessary, and that these services should
be eliminated from the list of those that are eligible for E-rate
support beginning in funding year 2015. Funding commitment data is not
available for several of the telephone features we will eliminate,
however, funding year 2012 commitments totaled approximately
$898,045.00 for paging and text messaging. Some commenters point out
that removing these services will not result in sizable cost savings
for the Fund. However, we agree with other commenters who argue that we
should eliminate support for these features and services because it
will allow us to direct some additional funds towards meeting our high-
speed connectivity targets without imposing undue hardship on
applicants.
137. We recognize that removing telephone components from the ESL
in funding year 2015 will require some providers to change their
billing practices or require some applicants to cost allocate the cost
of those services from their requests for support. However, because
these services are typically provided as an add-on or enhanced services
for an extra fee, they are often presented as separate line items on
telephone bills. Accordingly, it should not be overly burdensome for
applicants to seek funding for the voice component of the telephone
service only, and provide a cost allocation for any telephone features
we remove from the ESL. Under the Commission's rules, if a product or
service contains ineligible components, costs should be allocated to
the extent that a clear delineation can be made between the eligible
and ineligible components. The clear delineation must have a tangible
basis and the price for the eligible portion must be the most cost-
effective means of receiving the eligible service. For telephone
feature costs that are bundled with the cost of voice services, one way
to determine the cost of the feature is for an applicant to seek an
appropriate cost allocation from its service provider. We find that the
benefits of streamlining support for voice services by removing funding
for these services to enable that support to be used for essential
educational purposes outweigh any burdens applicants may face in the
next few funding years as they adjust to these changes, which the
record leads us to predict generally should be minimal.
b. Email, Web Hosting, Voicemail
138. We eliminate E-rate support for email, web hosting, and
voicemail beginning in funding year 2015 and delete the reference to
``electronic mail services.'' As many commenters recognize, these
services are applications delivered over broadband service, and do not
themselves deliver high-speed broadband. There is also evidence in the
record that applicants seeking E-rate support for these services may
not be getting the most cost-effective solutions, and that some service
providers package web hosting and email service offerings to E-rate
customers in a way that has created a risk that E-rate funds will pay
for ineligible services. We recognize that email, web hosting and
voicemail services may be important services for the day-to-day
operations of many schools and libraries and that some of
[[Page 49178]]
them have come to rely on E-rate support for those services. However,
continuing to fund these services diverts E-rate funding away from
essential high-speed broadband services. Therefore, removing E-rate
support for email, web hosting, and voicemail services aligns with our
restructuring of the E-rate program under section 254.
c. Data Plans and Air Cards for Mobile Devices
139. Data plans and air cards for mobile devices will continue to
be eligible for E-rate support only in instances when the school or
library seeking support demonstrates that individual data plans are the
most cost-effective option for providing internal broadband access for
portable mobile devices at schools and libraries. We agree with
commenters that it is generally not cost effective for applicants to
purchase on-campus use individual data plans that provide service on a
one plan per-device basis when a school or library has robust internal
wireless networks that provide Internet connectivity to multiple
devices within a school or library. Some commenters also contend that
these individual data plan services generally do not provide users with
enough high-speed connectivity to access certain educational and
informational materials.
140. Some schools and libraries already have wireless networks that
support one-to-one device initiatives. Moreover, with the increased
availability of E-rate funds as a result of our decisions in this
Report and Order, many more will be able to install high-speed internal
broadband networks to support one-to-one learning programs in schools
and reliable public Internet access in libraries. We consider funding
for individual data plans or air cards for individual users to be not
cost effective when those users can already access the Internet through
internal wireless broadband networks on wireless-enabled devices
without the help of stand-alone data plans or air cards. In general
(i.e., assuming no showing of cost effectiveness), for applicants that
receive data plans bundled with voice, only the voice services in the
plan will remain eligible for funding in accordance with the phase down
reductions we implement; the applicant must remove from its funding
request the costs associated with all other services in a bundled plan
that are ineligible.
141. We recognize that there are a few locales where WLANs are
impracticable or difficult to install, such as library bookmobiles.
There may also be some schools or libraries where installation of a
wireless network is possible but would be more costly than using
individual data plans because the school or library location serves a
very small number of students or patrons. Therefore, we will allow
applicants to seek funding for individual data plans where the
applicant is able to demonstrate that individual data plans are the
most cost-effective option for providing internal broadband access for
mobile devices. In order to ensure that individual data plans are the
most cost-effective option, applicants that seek funding for individual
data plans must be able to demonstrate either that installing a WLAN is
not physically possible, or must provide a comparison of the costs to
implement an individual data plan solution versus a wireless local area
network solution. The cost comparison may be established through the
competitive bidding process by seeking and comparing bids on both
internal wireless networks and individual data plans. Applicants should
be prepared to demonstrate to the Commission and USAC that individual
data plans are the most cost-effective option for their situation by
submitting the cost comparison information upon request.
3. Impact on Multiyear Contracts
142. In response to commenters asking that we permit funding for
phased-out services until multi-year contracts expire for those
services, we decline to provide exceptions or allow ``grandfathering''
for multi-year contracts. This decision will simplify the elimination
of funding for these components and services for applicants and for
USAC, and is consistent with our need to transition funding in the
program to high-speed broadband without undue delay. Although the
Commission permits applicants to enter into multi-year contracts for
eligible services, the Commission has never adopted a rule insulating
applicants and service providers from changes in program rules simply
because a multi-year contract was utilized.
IV. Maximizing the Cost-Effectiveness of Spending for E-Rate Supported
Purchases
143. To maximize the cost-effectiveness of spending for E-rate
supported services, we focus in this section on driving down costs for
the services and equipment needed to deliver high-speed broadband
connectivity to and within schools and libraries. There is widespread
agreement in the record about the importance of encouraging cost-
effective purchasing in the E-rate program. Every dollar spent
inefficiently for E-rate supported services is one less dollar
available to meet schools' and libraries' broadband connectivity needs.
144. Moreover, there appears to be substantial room for improvement
in E-rate-supported purchasing. Although E-rate applicants are required
to seek competitive bids for E-rate supported services and to select
the most cost-effective bid they receive, there remain large variations
in the amount of money spent on similar services. Some variation is to
be expected due to differences in local needs and conditions, such as
between large urban schools and small rural schools. However, pre-
discount prices also vary in ways that are unexpected. For instance,
prices paid for telecommunications and Internet access in urban areas
are often higher than those in rural areas. This is the opposite of
what we would generally expect, given that the economies of scale and
distance should generally make broadband deployment more expensive to
smaller districts in rural America. In major metropolitan areas, the
quartile of schools paying the most for 100 Mbps of Internet access
services pays nearly three times more than the quartile paying the
least and the quartile paying the most for 1 Gbps WAN connections pays
nearly four times more than the quartile paying the least. Even in the
same state, prices for rural broadband services can vary widely. For
example, the Idaho Commission for Libraries explains that prices range
from $3.33/Mbps/month to $397.56/Mbps/month in its state's rural
libraries, while ALA notes that the cost for a T1 line can vary from a
few hundred dollars to more than two thousand dollars per month in
Pennsylvania.
145. This variation suggests there is more we can do to drive down
prices for E-rate services. It also suggests that applicants need more
information about purchasing decisions. Therefore, in this section, we
adopt changes to increase pricing transparency, encourage consortium
purchasing and amend our LCP rule to clarify that potential service
providers must offer eligible schools, libraries and consortia the LCP.
A. Increasing Pricing Transparency
146. To assist schools and libraries in finding the best prices for
E-rate supported services, we adopt transparency requirements for E-
rate recipients and vendors beginning in funding year 2015. We agree
with those commenters who argue that transparency is an essential tool
to help applicants make educated buying
[[Page 49179]]
decisions. Transparent pricing will give schools and libraries greater
visibility into pricing and technology choices for their peers, which
we expect will help applicants in negotiations with equipment and
service providers.
147. Shining a light on prices paid for E-rate supported services
will help the Commission and third parties ensure that variations in
prices paid are in accordance with the program rules and that schools
and libraries are purchasing E-rate supported services cost
effectively. As several commenters explain, the public should have a
simple method to ensure that their students are getting the high-speed
connectivity needed for digital learning at the lowest price. Making
the pricing data publicly available will also improve analyses
performed by the Commission, state coordinators, and third parties
regarding the program's effectiveness and whether more needs to be done
to improve cost-efficient purchasing by schools and libraries. Finally,
pricing transparency will help third parties identify best practices
for purchasing and reduce waste across the program.
148. Therefore, to increase pricing transparency in the E-rate
program, we will make information regarding the specific services and
equipment purchased by schools and libraries, as well as their line
item costs, publicly available on USAC's Web site for funding year 2015
and beyond. This information is currently collected on FCC Form 471,
Block 5, Item 21 (``Item 21s''). In addition, we agree with commenters
that the information contained in the Item 21s should be standardized
to provide meaningful information that is easy to compare across
applications. We delegate authority to the Bureau to revise and oversee
form standardization, while directing the Bureau to be mindful of the
need to keep all forms as simple as possible in light of our goal of
streamlining administration of the program. Because pricing and
purchasing information will be of greatest benefit if it is available
in electronic, searchable forms, we also direct OMD to work with USAC
to ensure ready availability of the information in these forms, such as
through publicly available APIs and/or bulk data files posted on USAC's
Web site.
149. A few commenters express concern that a state law, local rule,
or an existing long-term contract may explicitly prohibit pricing
disclosure. In light of these concerns, we will allow applicants to opt
out of making pricing data public where such applicants can certify and
cite to a specific statute, rule, or other restriction barring
publication of the purchasing price data, such as a court order or a
contract in existence prior to adoption of this order. Applicants
making this certification shall retain necessary documentation to
demonstrate the restriction in the event of a Program Integrity
Assurance (PIA) review or audit. Contracts executed after the effective
date of this Report and Order, however, may not contain such
restrictions, and any such restrictions will have no effect.
150. We recognize the arguments of some commenters that price
transparency increases the risk of anti-competitive behavior by service
providers. It is true that in certain market conditions, publication of
prices can raise the risk of collusion or price harmonization. But
given the level of public scrutiny of the E-rate program, we think
price transparency will shine a light on any anti-competitive behavior.
Moreover, the benefits to applicants from better pricing information
are likely to outweigh any increased risks of collusion or price
harmonization among providers. As many commenters note, some pricing
information is already publicly available through state master
contracts and state public records laws in a piecemeal fashion--a state
of affairs that carries most of the collusion risks of broader
publication with many fewer benefits. Sophisticated vendors interested
in their competitors' pricing are most likely to be able to avail
themselves of public records laws, while individual school and library
applicants are less likely to have the practical ability to navigate
these processes. In contrast, centralized, easily accessible data about
pricing for purchased services will be more useful for applicants and
program oversight, while doing little to increase the risk of
collusion. For all these reasons, on balance, we conclude that
increasing pricing transparency is likely to increase competition and
drive down prices.
151. Some commenters also argue that transparency will reduce the
number of vendors competing to provide E-rate supported services
because vendors will leave the program rather than allow their prices
to be made public. Again, we are not persuaded. As described, in many
states pricing information is already publicly available in some
fashion, and there is no evidence in the record that this has lowered
participation in those states. Moreover, schools and libraries, like
all community anchor institutions, are valuable customers. Indeed,
greater pricing transparency should help those vendors offering the
best prices attract market interest in their services and equipment,
which should help foster a competitive marketplace.
152. We also disagree with the argument that school districts and
libraries will find pricing information too confusing to be useful. As
many commenters note, individual school districts or libraries often
have unique characteristics that make the prices available to them
lower or higher than national or regional averages. For example, small
rural schools may legitimately face higher prices for broadband
connectivity than large urban schools because of their distance from
the nearest fiber, the dearth of other broadband customers in their
immediate vicinity, and lack of competitive options. But E-rate
applicants are already required to make judgments regarding the costs
of proposed services. To the extent a school or library arms itself
with price information from its peers and requests a price that a
vendor believes is unreasonably low for some equipment or service, we
are confident that the vendor will be appropriately incented to explain
any unique circumstances that justify its higher price. In sum, even
acknowledging that applicants will face varying circumstances that
affect the prices available to them, we find that transparency will aid
applicants in making smarter spending judgments in accordance with
their obligation to select cost-effective services.
153. Although we require publication of prices for goods and
services purchased by applicants, we decline at this time to require
public disclosure of other pricing information, including available
pricing from service providers or bid responses. Many commenters argue
that submitting bid information is burdensome, and the goods and
services selected by applicants should represent the most cost-
effective solution for their needs following a competitive bidding
process, with price as the primary factor. Therefore, we are persuaded
that the current burden to applicants of submitting comprehensive bid
information to USAC outweighs any incremental benefit to the public
from the publication of prices for non-winning bids, which, by
definition, were not the most cost-effective choice. At the same time,
we take this opportunity to remind applicants and vendors that they are
responsible for the retention of all documents related to their
applications, including bids submitted in response to a solicitation,
in accordance with our rules. Applicants still may be required to
provide all bid responses during PIA
[[Page 49180]]
review of an application or during an audit.
154. We also decline to require disclosure of pricing information
for past funding years. Pricing information on Item 21s has not been
published in the past, and the Commission has redacted pricing
information from Freedom of Information Act responses at the request of
service providers claiming it was proprietary information. Given
stakeholders' expectations when prior-year applications were submitted,
we will continue to treat recent Item 21 information as potentially
sensitive for funding year 2014 and before. However, this Report and
Order serves as notice to all service providers that the receipt of E-
rate support will be conditioned on disclosure of this pricing
information beginning in funding year 2015.
155. Finally, we terminate the program the Commission created in
the Second Report and Order, 68 FR 36931, June 20, 2003, testing an
online list of internal connections equipment eligible for discounts.
USAC no longer updates the database in part because of the burdens it
placed on USAC and vendors. Meanwhile, the publication of pricing data
as provided will provide a less burdensome and more accurate
representation of the goods and services being purchased by applicants
with E-rate support, as well as the prices paid. We received no
comments objecting to termination of the eligible products database.
B. Encouraging Consortia and Bulk Purchasing
156. Consortium purchasing can drive down the prices paid by
schools and libraries for E-rate supported services. In this section,
we reduce or eliminate some of the existing barriers to applicants'
participation in consortia. As an initial matter, we direct Commission
staff to work with USAC to prioritize review of consortia applications.
We also adopt rules to make it easier for applicants to take advantage
of consortium bidding and clarify some apparent misconceptions about
consortia participation. In response to concerns raised by E-rate
applicants about the current method for allocating E-rate support among
members of an E-rate consortium, in the accompanying FNPRM, we propose
to amend the way consortia determine the amount of support to be
received by their members to ensure that E-rate applicants that choose
to join a consortium do not risk receiving less support, and seek
comment on other ways to encourage consortium purchasing.
1. Speeding Review of Consortium Applications
157. In order to address applicants' complaints that consortia
applications have historically received reviews late in the application
review process, we direct OMD and the Bureau, working with USAC, to
prioritize application review for state and regional consortia
applicants. OMD and USAC have already undertaken an initiative to speed
review of all E-rate applications, with a particular focus on broadband
applications. We applaud that work and want to build on the positive
results, particularly with respect to state and regional consortia
applications. We expect that the improved processing times for
consortia applications will result in more funding commitments flowing
faster to schools and libraries, which will motivate more applicants to
join consortia in future funding years.
2. Preferred Master Contracts
158. To further encourage applicants to take advantage of bulk
buying opportunities, we delegate authority to the Bureau to designate
preferred master contracts for category two equipment. The Bureau may
make such a designation for the purpose of (a) exempting the preferred
master contract from the FCC Form 470 filing requirement and (b)
requiring applicants to include the preferred master contract in their
bid evaluations even if the master contract is not submitted as a bid
in response to the applicant's FCC Form 470. The Bureau has authority
to institute either one or both of these exceptions for a preferred
master contract and must re-evaluate its decision to designate a
contract as a preferred master contract every two funding years.
159. We authorize the Bureau to designate a master contract as a
preferred master contract if it offers eligible entities nationwide the
opportunity to obtain excellent pricing for category two services as
reported on FCC Form 471. National availability of the equipment
offered on a preferred master contract will ensure that all E-rate
applicants have the opportunity to take advantage of its pricing.
160. We limit preferred master contracts to equipment used in
category two internal connections at this time. Commodities such as the
equipment used in internal connections lend themselves to bulk
purchasing arrangements, and can be shipped nationwide. The more varied
nature of services, such as broadband services and internal connection
installation services, makes implementing bulk purchase arrangements
more complicated. We therefore choose not to authorize the designation
of preferred master contracts for such services at this time.
161. We agree with commenters who support national bulk buying
opportunities because of the unmatched economy of scale national
purchasing allows. In order to help ensure such scale (and thus
maximize the benefit to applicants and the E-rate program), we
authorize the Bureau to limit the number of master contracts it
designates as preferred. Recognizing, however, that E-rate applicants
may still be able to negotiate better pricing from vendors not
associated with a preferred master contract, we decline to require
applicants to purchase services from a preferred master contract at
this time.
a. FCC Form 470 Exception
162. Allowing applicants to take internal connections equipment
from a preferred master contract without filing an FCC Form 470 will
ease the administrative burden on applicants without compromising cost-
effectiveness. Several commenters encouraged us to eliminate the FCC
Form 470 filing requirement for certain master contracts because of the
administrative burdens associated with competitive bidding. Although
competitive bidding is vital to limiting waste and ensuring that
services are provided at the lowest possible rates, in the limited case
of equipment available on a preferred master contract, we find that it
is not necessary for applicants to file an FCC Form 470 because the
terms of the preferred master contract assure us that applicants will
receive the best possible pricing on the services they order. We cannot
at this time exempt master contracts that are not preferred master
contracts from any competitive bidding requirements because we do not
have the same assurances with respect to pricing for all master
contracts.
163. Applicants who wish to take services from a preferred master
contract without filing an FCC Form 470 would indicate on their FCC
Form 471 that they are purchasing services from a preferred master
contract instead of citing to an FCC Form 470.
b. Bid Evaluation Requirement
164. Requiring applicants to include preferred master contracts in
bid evaluations helps ensure that applicants make cost-effective
purchases while enabling them to select the services that best suit
their needs. Applicants will only be required to include equipment
available on a preferred master contract in their bid evaluations if it
is the same
[[Page 49181]]
equipment the applicant sought on its FCC Form 470. Applicants would
still have the ability to select bids submitted by service providers in
response to the FCC Forms 470, as long as the applicants' evaluation
treats the price of eligible equipment as the primary factor in bid
selection and the selected bid is the most cost-effective.
3. Authority To Seek Consortium Bids
165. To further increase cost-effective purchasing by applicants,
we next amend our rules to permit a consortium lead to identify on its
consortium's FCC Form 470 the schools, school districts and libraries
for which it has authority to seek competitive bids for E-rate eligible
services even if it does not have authority to order services for those
entities. Our rules currently require the FCC Forms 470 and FCC Forms
471 be signed by a person authorized to order eligible services for the
applicants and do not distinguish between authority for E-rate
consortium leads to seek bids and authority for consortium leads to
purchase the services. As a result, consortium members who are
unwilling to cede authority to purchase E-rate eligible services to the
consortium lead release their own FCC Form 470 and likely do not
attract the number of competitively priced bids, if any, from
competitive vendors. By aggregating potential demand in the bidding
process, and using the FCC Form 470 process to attract bidders, a
consortium can drive down the price of eligible services even for its
members who wish to order services on their own. This rule change will
take effect for funding year 2015. Our rules will continue to permit
consortium leads to purchase services on behalf of some or all of their
members and we encourage consortium leads to seek both forms of
authorization, as appropriate.
4. Correcting Misconceptions
166. We also take this opportunity to correct misconceptions about
consortia applications that appear to have prevented some applicants
from joining consortia, and to remind applicants and service providers
about already-existing rules that should work to encourage
participation in consortia. We remind applicants that E-rate rules do
not require a consortium to solicit or select a single vendor to
provide service to all consortium members and that applicants can
authorize a consortium lead to act on their behalf for multiple years.
167. Consortia selection of multiple service providers. Some
commenters argue that consortia purchasing may actually increase prices
by excluding smaller service providers who are not able to serve the
full needs of a consortium. In light of these comments, we remind all
stakeholders that consortia do not need to solicit or select a single
vendor able to provide service to all members of a consortium. Rather,
a consortium may invite vendors to bid on services to a subset of
consortia members, and may find that a combination of different service
providers offer the most cost-effective solution for consortium
members. Even though a larger service provider may enjoy economies of
scale and scope, it will not necessarily be able to provide
competitively priced service in every area in which a consortium's
members are located. Therefore, consortia applicants should make clear
in their FCC Forms 470 and any associated RFPs that they are not
required to select a single provider that can meet the needs of all
members. While some consortia select a single service provider, many
others select a combination of service providers to meet the needs of
their consortium members. In light of the apparent confusion on this
issue, we direct USAC to remind applicants and vendors, during USAC
training and other outreach, that consortia can solicit bids from
service providers to cover a portion of the services sought by the
consortia.
168. Multi-year authorization. We also clarify that applicants can
authorize a consortium lead to act on their behalf for multiple years,
and need not reaffirm that authorization every funding year. In order
to ensure that a consortium lead is not seeking bids or applying for
support on behalf of schools and libraries without their knowledge or
consent, our rules have required and continue to require FCC Forms 470
and FCC Forms 471 to be signed by a person authorized to seek or order
services for the applicants. To show that it is authorized to seek or
order eligible services for the applicants, a consortium lead may
provide copies of relevant state statutes or regulations requiring
members to participate in the consortium or some other proof that each
consortium member is aware that it is represented in the application.
169. Another common way for a consortium lead to demonstrate its
authority to seek or order eligible services on behalf of its members
is to solicit letters of agency (LOAs) from consortium members. Some
commenters ask us to ease consortia's administrative burdens by
reducing the frequency with which applicants provide LOAs or eliminate
the practice of applicants providing LOAs to consortium leads. We
decline to eliminate the LOA practice altogether because, in many
circumstances, an LOA could be the only means a consortium lead has to
demonstrate its authority to seek or order services on behalf of a
specific consortium member. We can, however, clarify that applicants
may provide consortia leads with LOAs that cover multiple funding years
as long as those years are specified in the LOA and as long as the
authorization includes the type of services covered by the LOA.
5. Other Rules Changes
170. We also add a definition of ``consortium'' in our rules that
is based on the definition of ``library consortium'' that has long been
a part of our rules. In the definition, we also make it clear that
consortia may include health care providers eligible under the Rural
Health Care program and public sector (governmental) entities,
including, but not limited to, state colleges and state universities,
state educational broadcasters, counties, and municipalities. This
change does not alter requirements for applicants and service
providers.
C. Offering the Lowest Corresponding Price
171. In order to help ensure that E-rate applicants make cost-
effective purchasing decisions, we remind service providers that they
not only must charge eligible schools, libraries, and consortia the LCP
when providing E-rate services, but also must offer eligible entities
the LCP when submitting competitive bids to provide E-rate supported
services.
172. The LCP rule prohibits an E-rate provider from ``charg[ing]''
E-rate applicants a price higher than the lowest price that provider
charges to non-residential customers who are similarly situated to a
particular school, library, rural health care provider or consortium
that purchase directly from the service provider. In authorizing the
creation of the E-rate program, Congress imposed an obligation on
telecommunications carriers to provide services to schools and
libraries at rates less than the amounts charged for similar services
to other parties. To ensure that schools, libraries and consortia
participating in the E-rate program receive all services at the lowest
rates available, the Commission extended this requirement to apply to
all providers of E-rate supported services. The LCP rule benefits E-
rate applicants and the Fund by ensuring that the price for E-rate
supported services is no more than the market price for those services,
absent a showing by a provider that it faces
[[Page 49182]]
demonstrably higher costs to serve a particular school or library.
173. While the LCP rule does not expressly mention an obligation to
``offer'' eligible entities the LCP, this obligation was articulated in
the Universal Service First Report and Order where the Commission
described the LCP provision as requiring service providers to ``offer''
services that comply with the LCP. To ensure that applicants receive
the best possible bids from service providers in response to their FCC
Forms 470, consistent with the Commission's intent, we take this
opportunity to reemphasize that our LCP rule, as it is now codified in
our rules, means that providers must both (i) submit bids to applicants
at prices no higher than the lowest price they charge to similarly-
situated non-residential customers for similar services; and (ii)
charge applicants a price no higher than the LCP. In abundance of
caution, we also modify our LCP rule to better reflect the dual nature
of this obligation.
174. Because the LCP rule makes prices more affordable for schools
and libraries, as contemplated by the statute, we also take this
opportunity to agree with those commenters who support stepped-up
enforcement of our LCP rule. We therefore direct the Enforcement Bureau
to devote additional resources to investigating, and where appropriate,
bringing enforcement actions against service providers who violate the
LCP rule.
V. Making the E-Rate Application Process and Other E-Rate Processes
Fast, Simple and Efficient
175. In this section, we focus on making the E-rate application
process and other E-rate processes fast, simple and efficient. There is
broad agreement on the need to simplify the administration of the E-
rate program in order to reduce the burden on applicants, make the most
efficient use of E-rate funding, and foster greater participation in
the E-rate program. We therefore adopt a host of programmatic changes
in this section, including simplifying the application process by,
among other things, providing a process for expediting the filing and
review of applications involving multi-year contracts; eliminating
technology plans for internal connections; simplifying and clarifying
applicants' discount rate calculations; simplifying the invoicing and
disbursement process; and requiring all USF requests for review to be
filed initially with USAC. As we streamline the program, we remain
mindful of our need to gather relevant data from applicants and to
protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. Accordingly, in this section,
we also adopt measures to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse.
176. We also direct USAC to take steps to reduce the administrative
burden on applicants by processing and managing applications more
efficiently, modernizing its E-rate information technology (IT)
systems, timely publishing all non-confidential E-rate data in an open
and standardized format, and communicating more clearly with E-rate
applicants and service providers. We recognize that, as part of this
modernization effort, USAC, working with OMD and the Bureau, already
has made great strides, and we expect that they will continue to work
together closely to push these reforms forward.
177. USAC, working with the Bureau and OMD, will implement the
administrative changes we adopt today in funding year 2015, unless
otherwise noted. In the Universal Service Third Report and Order, 62 FR
56118, October 29, 1997, the Commission delegated authority to the
Bureau to issue orders interpreting our E-rate rules as necessary to
ensure that support for services provided to schools and libraries
operate to further our universal service goals. We re-affirm that
delegation. We also direct the Bureau, working with OMD and other
Commission staff, to make changes to the E-rate forms, as needed, and
to provide direction to USAC to implement the changes, including
providing clarification and guidance in the case of any ambiguity that
may arise. These changes, taken together, will result in a program that
is easier to navigate for applicants and vendors, will improve program
efficiency by eliminating unnecessary complexities, and will constrain
USAC's administrative expenses, ultimately resulting in a cost savings
to the E-rate program that can be used for the benefit of schools and
libraries.
A. Simplifying the Application Process
178. We agree with those commenters who support simplifying the E-
rate application process as an important part of streamlining the
administration of the E-rate program. We therefore adopt a simplified
application process for multi-year contracts; eliminate the requirement
for technology plans; ease the signed contract requirement to allow
applicants to seek E-rate support once they have entered into a legally
binding agreement with a service provider; exempt from our competitive
bidding requirements purchases of commercially available high-speed
broadband services that cost less than $3,600 per year; require the use
of electronic filings; and enable direct connections between schools
and libraries.
1. Simplifying the Application Process for Multi-Year Contracts
179. As an initial matter, we simplify the application process for
funding requests that involve multi-year contracts for eligible
services. This simplified application process will be available to any
applicant, beginning in funding year 2015, when: (1) The applicant has
a multi-year contract for E-rate supported services that is no longer
than five years, and (2) any changes in the requested services or to
the terms and conditions under which those services are provided are
within the scope of the establishing FCC Form 470 and the applicable
contract. As the Commission proposed in the E-rate Modernization NPRM,
applicants that elect to use the multi-year contract funding review
process will only be required to submit a complete FCC Form 471 for the
first funding year in which they are seeking E-rate support under the
multi-year contract. All applicants, even those currently in the middle
of a multi-year contract, will be required to file a complete FCC Form
471 once. In subsequent funding years covered by a multi-year contract,
applicants will be permitted to use a streamlined application process
that will be shorter, require less information from the applicants, and
be approved through an expedited review process, absent evidence of
waste, fraud, or abuse.
180. By minimizing pre-commitment application review by USAC in
subsequent years of a multi-year contract, we anticipate USAC will be
able to review applications more quickly while lowering the
administrative burdens on applicants and without increasing the
likelihood of waste, fraud and abuse. While applicants taking advantage
of this new process will benefit greatly from expedited review and the
reduced administrative burden, this process does not guarantee funding
in subsequent years, even for the same services. E-rate funding will
continue to be committed and disbursed on an annual basis. Applicants
must be eligible for E-rate support in each of the years funding is
sought, and the services must be eligible for support in each such
year.
181. We agree with those commenters who suggest that five years is
an appropriate maximum length of time for contracts seeking to use a
multi-year contract application process. Commenters note that a five-
year contract length is consistent with other
[[Page 49183]]
procurement models in the education industry. We therefore find that
the three-year limit the Commission proposed in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM is too restrictive. Although we do not adopt a
maximum contract length in this Report and Order, in the accompanying
FNPRM we do seek further comment on setting a maximum contract length
for E-rate supported services.
182. To facilitate these changes to our application process, we
direct the Bureau and OMD to work with USAC to revise the application
process for multi-year contracts so that an applicant is not required
to complete the full FCC Form 471 after the first year the applicant
seeks funding for services provided pursuant to a multi-year contract
that has a maximum term of five years. Under this revised application
process, applicants must file a complete FCC Form 471 in the first year
of a multi-year contract that is eligible for this streamlined review
process, but in subsequent contract years applicants will only need to
provide basic information identifying the applicant, confirm that the
funding request is a continuation of an FRN from a previous funding
year based on a multi-year contract, and identify and explain any
changes to their application, such as changes in the discount rate, the
membership of a consortium, or the services ordered. (All such changes
must be within the scope of the establishing FCC Form 470 and the
underlying agreement.) While USAC and the Commission staff, of course,
remain able to request other information necessary to reach a
commitment decision, we direct USAC to aim to minimize such requests.
183. Although some commenters would prefer to file a single FCC
Form 471 to cover multiple years of a multi-year contract, we find that
a streamlined filing and review process for subsequent contract years
of a multi-year contract balances the applicant's desire for expedited
review and administrative convenience with USAC's need to confirm basic
information about the request in subsequent years, and to verify an
applicant's interest in applying for funds for that funding year. USAC
will review the initial FCC Form 471 applications associated with
multi-year contracts as thoroughly as it reviews applications covered
by one-year contracts. In subsequent years of a multi-year contract,
however, where USAC has already reviewed a funding application for the
first year of a multi-year contract, USAC will be able to streamline
its pre-commitment review. If there are no changes to the services
purchased, conducting the same review for each subsequent year of the
contract is not likely to identify errors in the application.
184. While we amend our rules to simplify applicants' use of multi-
year contracts, we decline to allow applicants to receive multi-year
funding commitments. In the E-rate Modernization NPRM, the Commission
sought comment on allowing multi-year funding commitments. The
Commission cited to its recent decision to allow multi-year funding
commitments in the Healthcare Connect Fund Order, 78 FR 38606, June 27,
2013, in which the Commission noted that, by eliminating the need for
applicants to file every year, multi-year funding commitments would
reduce uncertainty and minimize the administrative burden for
applicants and for USAC. Despite support from commenters for similar
multi-year funding commitments in the E-rate context, important
differences between the Healthcare Connect Fund and the E-rate program
prevent us from adopting multi-year funding commitments in the E-rate
program. Unlike the Healthcare Connect Fund, demand for E-rate funds
significantly outstrips supply. Further, there is no record yet on the
effect of the Healthcare Connect Fund Order on the Healthcare Connect
Fund or as a constraint on funding available for other applicants in
the fund. Although multi-year commitments may slightly increase
administrative efficiency for applicants and USAC, obligating funds
years in advance of their use would be detrimental to the management of
the program. Moreover, the multi-year contract application process we
adopt today should allow the E-rate program and applicants to achieve
many of the efficiencies of a multi-year funding commitment process.
2. Eliminating the Technology Plan Requirements
185. In the interest of reducing the administrative burden on E-
rate applicants, beginning with funding year 2015, we eliminate from
our rules the technology plan requirements for applicants seeking E-
rate support for category two services. The Commission previously
eliminated the technology plan requirements for priority one services,
and having considered the record, we now agree with commenters that the
burden of our requirement that applicants for internal connections and
basic maintenance of internal connections have certified technology
plans outweighs the benefits, particularly for small applicants with
limited resources.
186. We agree with those commenters who argue that technology
planning is an important step in the process of long-term planning on
how best to procure and utilize internal connections. We are certain
though that, even absent this rule, technology planning will continue
to occur because technology has become a central part of school and
library infrastructure, and technology planning has become integrated
into applicants' core strategic planning. We also expect that the
structural changes we make to the E-rate program's approach to
providing support for internal connections and basic maintenance of
internal connections will encourage good planning. We strongly
encourage all applicants, both large and small, to carefully review
existing plans given the many changes to the E-rate program that we
adopt in this Report and Order. However, we find that the burden of
getting formal approval and certification of these technology plans
outweighs the benefits to the program.
3. Exempting Low-Dollar Purchases of Commercially Available Business-
Class Internet Access From Competitive Bidding Rules
187. We create an exemption in our competitive bidding rules for
applicants seeking E-rate support to purchase commercially available,
business-class Internet access services that cost $3,600 or less for a
single year. An Internet access service will be eligible for this
exemption only if it offers bandwidth speeds of at least 100 Mbps
downstream and 10 Mbps upstream for a pre-discount price of $3,600 or
less annually, including any one-time installation and equipment
charges, and the service and price are commercially available. Based on
our review of commercial offerings online, this $3,600 annual limit is
a reasonable maximum that will allow some applicants to purchase
commercially available business-class Internet access. We clarify that
the $3,600 annual limit is the pre-discount amount for the service per
school or library. So, for example, a library system with three library
branches could qualify for this exemption if it purchased 100 Mbps
downstream and 20 Mbps upstream Internet access service for each of its
three branches at a cost of $250 per month for each branch. Each school
or library building must receive the eligible service at a cost of less
than $3,600 annually and applicants may not average the cost of
services across a number of schools or libraries. This exemption will
become effective in funding year 2015. As explained, applicants may
purchase services with a
[[Page 49184]]
multi-year contract, such as a two-year term, but we will not make
multi-year commitments. Applicants will therefore still be required to
file an FCC Form 471 in the second year of the service.
188. We recognize that competitive bidding is an essential
component of the E-rate program. At the same time, the record supports
a finding that administrative costs associated with the Commission's
competitive bidding rules and requirements may deter program
participation by entities requesting low-dollar Internet access
services. We are particularly concerned that smaller schools and
libraries may not be purchasing high-speed Internet connectivity
through the E-rate program due to these administrative costs.
Consistent with the goals we adopt today to increase broadband and
streamline the administrative process, we expect this limited exemption
to competitive bidding will encourage additional bandwidth purchases
and increased program participation. This exemption is likely to be
particularly attractive to small applicants that face a
disproportionate administrative burden from the competitive bidding
process and encourage these entities to increase bandwidth speeds in
the short term. Moreover, the bandwidth speeds required to qualify for
this program are consistent with the goals we have outlined in this
Report and Order, albeit typically for ``best efforts'' class services
rather than dedicated connections. We believe that such ``best
efforts'' service will frequently be sufficient for smaller entities
with fewer students or patrons or in rural areas where fiber has not
been deployed. For example, ALA notes that ``[o]ver half of all rural
libraries have internet speeds of 4 Mbps or less . . . and only 17
percent of rural libraries have speeds greater than 10 Mbps.'' As of
2012, only nine percent of all libraries have speeds greater than 100
Mbps. For these entities and others, this exemption will provide a
simple and efficient method to purchase business-class Internet access
and quickly increase connectivity speeds.
189. With respect to their purchase of such services, applicants
will be exempt from the competitive bidding rules under Sec. 54.503(a)
through (c), the certification requirement under Sec.
54.504(a)(1)(vi), and the corresponding rule on the selection of a
provider of eligible services under Sec. 54.511(a) of our rules. Such
applicants will use the FCC Form 471 to certify to their purchase of an
eligible commercially available business-class Internet access service.
We remind applicants of their obligation to comply with record
retention rules when purchasing eligible Internet access. We also
caution applicants and vendors that our gift rules will continue to
apply even where a purchase arrangement is exempt from the competitive
bidding process.
190. We find that purchasing high-speed Internet access with at
least 100 Mbps/10 Mbps for no more than a pre-discount price of $3,600
is a cost-effective service offering, particularly in light of the
benefits for smaller schools and libraries. In order to ensure that the
benefits of removing the administrative burden continue to outweigh the
costs of exempting competitive bidding, we also delegate authority to
the Bureau to lower the annual cost of broadband services or raise the
speed threshold of broadband services eligible for this competitive
bidding exemption, based on a determination of what rates and speeds
are commercially available and will meet the needs of at least some
subset of schools and libraries. We decline to adopt a de minimis
exemption for other eligible services at this time, but we keep the
record open on this issue and look forward to learning from the
experience of applicants who take advantage of the exemption from
competitive bidding that we adopt today.
4. Easing the Signed Contract Requirement
191. In order to further increase the efficiency of the
administrative process and simplify the application process for
applicants, we revise Sec. 54.504(a) of our rules to require that
applicants have a signed contract or other legally binding agreement in
place prior to submitting their FCC Forms 471 to USAC. The rule had
required applicants to submit their FCC Forms 471 requesting support
for services ``upon signing a contract for eligible services.'' While
this rule ensures that applicants have negotiated and agreed to
contractual terms prior to the filing of an FCC Form 471 requesting
support for E-rate services, there are many instances where applicants
have an agreement in place with their service provider or are already
receiving services, but have difficulty obtaining signatures prior to
the submission of their FCC Forms 471. Although we received no comments
on this issue, in many instances, applicants have sought a waiver of
this rule after having failed to obtain signatures prior to the
submission of their FCC Forms 471. The Commission has consistently
waived the requirement of a signed contract for petitioners who have
demonstrated that they had a legally binding agreement in place for the
relevant funding year. Rather than requiring applicants to seek such
waivers, we now revise our rules to require applicants to have a signed
contract or other legally binding agreement in place prior to filing
their FCC Forms 471. This revision to our rules will be effective
beginning in funding year 2015.
192. Applicants and service providers should understand that,
although no longer required, a signed contract will constitute the best
evidence that a legally binding agreement exists. Absent the existence
of a signed contract, in determining whether a legally binding
agreement is in place, we direct USAC to consider the existence of a
written offer from the service provider containing all the material
terms and conditions and a written acceptance of that offer as evidence
of the existence of a legally binding agreement. For example, a bid for
the services that includes all material terms and conditions provided
in response to an FCC Form 470 would be sufficient evidence of an offer
and an email from the applicant telling the service provider the bid
was selected would suffice as evidence of acceptance. In addition,
after a commitment of funding, an applicant's receipt of services
consistent with the offer and with the applicant's request for E-rate
support will also constitute evidence of the existence of a sufficient
offer and acceptance. A verbal offer and/or acceptance will not be
considered evidence of the existence of a legally binding agreement.
Revising the rule in this manner will provide applicants with
sufficient flexibility to finalize their service agreements after
filing their FCC Forms 471 while protecting the Fund against waste,
fraud, and abuse. We also remind parties that they must retain all
relevant documents for 10 years, consistent with our revised document
retention rules.
5. Requiring Electronic Filing of Documents
193. We also agree with commenters who suggest that, in order to
streamline the administration of the program, we should require E-rate
applicants and service providers to file all documents with USAC
electronically and USAC to make all notifications electronically, and
therefore direct USAC, in consultation with the Bureau and OMD, to
phase in such a requirement over the next three funding years. As the
Commission noted in the E-rate Modernization NPRM, the electronic
submission of FCC forms will improve the efficiency of submitting and
processing applications, resulting in faster commitments and
disbursements of E-rate funding. Furthermore, electronic filing will
reduce the
[[Page 49185]]
program's administrative costs because USAC will not have manually
entered data into its electronic system from paper submissions.
Electronic filing will result in fewer errors on forms and other
communications between USAC and applicants and service providers.
Therefore, beginning in funding year 2017, we will require the
submission of all filings and notifications electronically.
194. Some commenters argue that E-rate applicants and service
providers should have the option of filing paper copies. We recognize
that applicants vary widely in connectivity, technical resources and
administrative resources, and a limited exemption to our mandatory
electronic filing requirement would allow applicants and USAC to reap
many of the benefits of electronic filing while allowing the program to
respond to the needs of all applicants and service providers. We will
therefore allow applicants who can demonstrate that they have
insufficient resources to make electronic filings to file paper copies
of applications and other documents. We direct the Bureau and OMD,
working with USAC, to determine the circumstances under which
applicants may be exempt from this mandatory electronic filing
requirement and the process for applicants to seek permission to file
paper copies of documents.
6. Enabling Direct Connections Between Schools and Libraries
195. In the interest of promoting access to high-speed broadband
connections in the simplest and most efficient manner possible, we take
action consistent with a suggestion made by the ALA, and supported by
other commenters, that we allow rural schools and libraries eligible
for E-rate support to establish direct connections for the purpose of
accessing high-speed broadband services. As ALA explains, in many rural
communities, a library with low bandwidth may be in close proximity
(e.g., across the street) to a school with significantly higher
bandwidth and could be easily added to the school WAN. We find that
allowing these connections will afford some schools and libraries that
presently lack access to high-speed broadband the opportunity to
quickly and efficiently benefit from such connections.
196. We recognize that it will likely be necessary to waive some of
our rules to allow E-rate support for such connections. However, the
record is not fulsome enough for us to determine with certainty what
rules will need to be waived for each particular direct connection
project. We therefore encourage applicants to file waiver requests for
the purpose of seeking E-rate support for such direct connections. We
also direct the Bureau to expeditiously consider such waiver requests
and, as appropriate, to waive our rules, as is necessary, to grant such
requests, including the rule that would otherwise require both the
school and the library to apply for E-rate support. We further direct
the Bureau to report back to us on any such projects so that we may
consider whether to amend our rules in the future to allow for such
projects.
B. Simplifying Discount Rate Calculations
197. In the interest of making the E-rate application process and
other E-rate processes fast, simple and efficient, we adopt four
changes to the procedures for applicants to use in calculating their E-
rate discounts. First, we require school districts to calculate and use
district-wide discount rates for each application, thus eliminating the
need to calculate different discount rates depending on which schools
in a district are receiving services. Second, we modernize our
definitions of ``rural'' and ``urban'' for purposes of determining
applicants' discount rates. Third, we provide direction on how schools
and school districts that receive funding under the new community
eligibility provision (CEP) of the United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) should
calculate their E-rate discount rates. Finally, in order to protect the
program against waste, fraud and abuse, we also direct USAC to require
schools that calculate discount eligibility based on projections from
school-wide surveys to base their E-rate discount rate only on the
surveys they actually collect.
1. Adopting District-Wide Discount Rates
198. Consistent with our goal of making the E-rate application
process and other E-rate processes fast, simple and efficient, we adopt
the proposal in the E-rate Modernization NPRM to amend our rules to
require each school district to calculate and use a single district-
wide discount rate, rather than calculating and using building-by-
building discount rates. This requirement will be effective beginning
with funding year 2015. The record demonstrates that E-rate applicants
find the current building-by-building discount calculation approach to
be confusing, time-consuming, and fraught with the potential for
errors. It is also a significant source of delay in USAC's application
review process. We agree with commenters that adopting a district-wide
discount rate will simplify and streamline the E-rate application
process for applicants as well as USAC, while creating a more equitable
system of determining the discount schools and libraries should receive
for eligible services.
199. Requiring the use of a district-wide discount ensures the E-
rate program provides higher discount rates for higher poverty school
districts, while more closely matching the E-rate funding mechanism to
the actual accounting practices and organizational structure of school
districts. Individual schools within a district do not have their own
local taxing authority nor do they generally have a budget that is
legally separate from the district's budget. Moreover, the tax base of
a district is the entire district population, not just the population
associated with a subset of schools. While individual schools within a
district may have more or fewer student eligible for NSLP, school
districts develop consolidated budgets and allocate resources to
support comprehensively all of the district's students. As such, we
find that it is more appropriate to gauge a district's relative need
for funding based on its entire student population.
200. The record demonstrates the many benefits of adopting a
district-wide discount. For example, districts will no longer need to
complete multiple steps to calculate the appropriate discounts for each
building. Districts will also no longer need to file separate FCC Forms
471 for different combinations of schools that produce different
discount level requests. Also, by using a district-wide discount,
districts will no longer have to make difficult determinations
regarding non-instructional facilities (NIFs). For example, adopting a
district-wide discount approach will eliminate the confusing and
possibly misleading calculation for a NIF with a classroom that
requires the applicant to rely on a snapshot of students on a single
day for the specific discount. Consortia applications will also be
simpler and more equitable since each member of the consortium, whether
an individual school or an entire district, will use the discount level
for the district in which it is located, calculated on a district-level
basis.
201. The record also demonstrates that a district-wide approach
will reduce the administrative burden on USAC by removing the need to
identify and verify each school's discount rate. Commenters note that
associated USAC efforts to validate the calculation are
[[Page 49186]]
time-consuming. Reducing the burden of verifying each school's discount
rate should speed the review process, and therefore help speed funding
decisions to the benefit of all applicants.
202. Modifying our rules so that schools calculate a district-wide
discount rate should also benefit libraries, which already use the
district-wide discount rate of the school districts in which they are
located. We anticipate libraries will benefit from this change because
school districts will have to determine their district-wide discount
rates to submit their FCC Forms 471 and thus libraries should have an
easier time getting that information in a timely fashion from the
relevant school districts.
203. Several commenters express concern that a district-wide
discount calculation could deprive schools and libraries in higher
poverty neighborhoods of internal connection funding. However, the
revisions we make in this Report and Order to funding internal
connections will provide predictable support for internal connections
for all schools and libraries, and provide a greater discount for
higher poverty school districts and the libraries located in those
school districts.
204. School districts rarely purchase broadband on a school or
neighborhood basis but instead buy on a larger scale. Cost efficiencies
and budgeting realities result in school districts purchasing
telecommunications and Internet services on a district-wide basis or in
geographic areas within that district that align with service provider
availability. Although commenters also express concern that school
districts will be unable to target E-rate resources to schools and
libraries in lower-income neighborhoods if a district-wide discount
calculation is in place, the Commission's decision to adopt a district-
wide discount will not affect school districts' ability to apply for
funding based on the connectivity needs of individual schools. We also
take this opportunity to remind school districts that they are under an
obligation to ensure ``that the most disadvantaged schools and
libraries that are treated as sharing in the service receive an
appropriate share of benefits from those services.''
205. In light of the benefits to school districts and libraries of
adopting a district-wide discount, we revise Sec. 54.505(b)(4) of our
rules to require school districts to calculate their E-rate discounts
by: Dividing the total number of students in the district eligible for
NSLP by the total number of students in the district and comparing that
single figure against the discount matrix to determine the school
district's discount rate for E-rate supported services. All public
schools and libraries within that public school district will receive
the same discount rate. For the sake of simplicity, library systems
that have branches or outlets in more than one public school district
should use the address of the central outlet or main administrative
office to determine which public school district the library system is
in, and should use that public located in school district's discount
rate when applying as a library system or on behalf of individual
libraries within that system.
206. In addition, our adoption of a district-wide discount allows
us to permit applicants to add schools within their districts that were
inadvertently omitted from a district's E-rate funding applications
even post-commitment. Our rules currently require schools and libraries
to list on their FCC Forms 471 every entity that will receive E-rate
supported services under that application. Even when a school district
is intending to use the requested service to serve all the schools in
its district, it sometimes inadvertently omits an eligible school from
the application. The district has the opportunity to correct such an
omission if it catches the error when it receives from USAC its Receipt
Acknowledgement Letter (RAL), which summarizes the district's
application and funding requested. However, if it does not notice the
error by the time its funding commitment letter is issued, but it is
later discovered by USAC as part of a post-commitment review--for
example, an audit or other assessment--that eligible school technically
is not allowed to receive E-rate funding, under the current procedures,
even though it is an eligible school and the services were meant to
serve the entire district. This procedure exists because omission of
one school from a discount rate calculation can change the discount the
district receives, as each school's discount is calculated separately.
With our move to a district-wide discount calculation, districts will
be including all the students from all their schools in their discount
calculation. As such, we find that an applicant can add eligible
schools within its district that were inadvertently omitted from its
applications, even after the deadline for making changes to the FCC
Form 471.
207. We recognize that some schools use a federally approved
alternative mechanism, such as a survey alternative, to determine their
discount percentage. We do not anticipate any negative ramifications to
districts with any such schools because, regardless of the method a
school district uses to establish its discount, it must determine a
district-wide percentage of students eligible for the free and reduced
lunch program from the total student population.
208. While we do not specifically define the term ``school
district,'' an applicant should determine its discount using all E-rate
eligible students in schools that fall under the control of a central
educational agency. Commenters note that private and charter schools
generally operate independently of the main public school district and
are individually responsible for their finances and administration. We
therefore agree with commenters that these educational entities and
local public school districts should calculate their discounts
separately if not affiliated financially or operationally with a school
district. Independent charter schools, private schools, and other
eligible educational facilities that are seeking support for more than
one school building should factor all students in facilities under the
control of their central administrative agency into the discount
calculation.
209. Consortia applications will continue to use a simple average
of all members' discounts to calculate the overall consortium discount,
but will now be required to use each member's district-wide discount.
Consistent with current Commission rules, we require that for services
used only by an individual institution, the applicable discount rate
for the services will be determined based on the applicable district-
wide discount rate for that individual school or library, not the
consortium's overall discount rate. We realize that there will be
shared services that cannot, without substantial difficulty, be
identified with particular users or be allocated directly to particular
entities. In those situations, we will continue to require the state,
school district, or library system to ``strive to ensure'' that each
school and library in a consortium receives the full benefit of the
discount on shared services to which it is entitled. Using the
district-wide average, should help prevent consortia applications from
being held up due to changes in building status, such as school
closings and consolidations, so long as there is no indication of
waste, fraud or abuse at the invoicing stage. We realize, however, that
using a district-wide average in place of the individual consortium
member discount still does not provide a ``weighted average'' for
consortia members that better indicates the discount to which members
would have been entitled if they had applied
[[Page 49187]]
for E-rate services on their own. Therefore, we seek additional comment
on a proposal to use a weighted average in the accompanying FNPRM.
2. Updating the Definition of ``Rural''
210. In keeping with our commitment to ensuring that rural schools
and libraries are able to afford E-rate supported services, we adopt
the U.S. Census Bureau (Census) definitions of rural and urban for the
purpose of determining whether an E-rate applicant qualifies for an
additional rural discount. In so doing, we adopt one of the approaches
the Commission proposed in the E-rate Modernization NPRM to modernizing
the definitions of ``rural'' and ``urban'' in Sec. 54.505(b)(3) of our
rules. While many commenters supported an alternative proposal to adopt
the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) definition for determining whether a school is rural,
we find that using Census data avoids several administrative challenges
that would arise were we to adopt the NCES classification system. For
instance, commenters noted that there can be delays in obtaining NCES
codes for new schools and some E-rate-eligible entities do not have an
NCES designation. Using Census data ensures that all E-rate-eligible
schools and libraries, even those without an NCES code (or the library-
equivalent FCES code) can readily determine their urban/rural status.
We also note that the Census definition fully overlaps with the
geography defined by NCES as ``rural.''
211. Our current definition of ``rural'' for purposes of the E-rate
program is outdated. By contrast, the Census data is relatively new
and, the urban boundaries are adjusted annually to remain current. The
Census definition classifies a particular location as rural or urban
based on population density and geography, and other criteria involving
non-residential development. For the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau
defined urban areas as the densely settled core of census tracts or
blocks that met minimum population density requirements (50,000 people
or more), along with adjacent territories of at least 2,5000 people
that link to the densely settled core. ``Rural'' encompasses all
population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area.
Therefore, beginning with funding year 2015, schools and libraries
located in areas that are not located in urban areas, as defined by the
most recent decennial Census, will be considered rural for the purposes
of the E-rate program. We direct USAC to post a tool on its Web site
that will allow schools and libraries to obtain information regarding
whether they are classified as urban or rural under the new definition.
We note that the Census Bureau already offers a tool on its Web site
that provides the urban/rural status of any U.S. address.
212. In the E-rate Modernization NPRM, we sought comment on how to
treat school districts and library systems with a combination of rural
and urban schools and libraries. We conclude that any school district
or library system that has a majority of schools or libraries in a
rural area that meets the statutory definition of eligibility for E-
rate support will qualify for the additional rural discount. This
approach mirrors the methodology used by NCES to determine whether a
school district is urban or rural and is supported by commenters in the
record. This approach is also consistent with the method the FCC uses
in the rural health care program context. We further direct USAC to
take steps to minimize the burden of reporting rural or urban
classification in conjunction with the requirement to phase in all-
electronic filing over the next three years.\1\ For example, USAC
should ensure that the FCC Form 471 allows applicants to certify that
the location of the schools or libraries listed have not changed from
the previous year's filing, or does not require applicants to provide
classification data in cases where the applicant's status as ``urban''
or ``rural'' does not affect their discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See supra section VI.A.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Addressing the NSLP Community Eligibility Provision
213. Consistent with our goal of making the E-rate application
process and other E-rate processes fast, simple and efficient,
beginning with funding year 2015, we will allow schools and school
districts that are participating in the NSLP CEP to use the same
approach for determining their E-rate discount rate as they use for
determining their NSLP reimbursement rate. Specifically, schools
utilizing the CEP shall calculate their student eligibility for free or
reduced priced lunches by multiplying the percentage of directly
certified students by the CEP national multiplier. This number shall
then be applied to the discount matrix to determine a school district's
discount for eligible E-rate services. Libraries' discount percentages
will continue to be based on that of the public school district in
which they are physically located. Schools participating in the CEP
will not be considered to have a greater than 100 percent student
eligibility for purposes of determining the district-wide discount rate
for E-rate services, priority access to category two services, or for
any other E-rate purposes.
214. Traditionally, schools that participate in the NSLP collect,
on an annual basis, individual eligibility applications from each of
their students seeking free or reduced-priced lunches. Schools use the
NSLP eligibility data for many other purposes, including calculating an
applicant's E-rate discount rate. However, schools increasingly have
the option of participating in the CEP, which neither requires nor
permits schools to collect individual student eligibility information.
A school is eligible for community eligibility if at least 40 percent
of its students are ``directly certified,'' i.e., identified for free
meals through means other than household applications (for example,
students directly certified as receiving benefits from the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program). To compensate for low-income families
not reflected in the direct certification data, schools apply a
standard, national factor (multiplier), currently set at 1.6, to their
identified student population in order to determine the total
percentage of meals for which they will be reimbursed by the USDA.
Schools are required to renew their direct certification numbers once
every four years. If, during the four-year cycle, a school's percentage
of identified students increases, the school may use the higher
percentage in determining USDA reimbursement. If the percentage of
identified students decreases, the school may continue to use the
original percentage for the remainder of the four-year eligibility
period.
215. We agree with commenters who recommend that we allow schools
and school districts that participate in the CEP to determine their
discount rate for E-rate by treating the number of directly certified
students multiplied by the national multiplier as the percentage of
students eligible for NSLP. The record demonstrates that the CEP
provides an estimate of the percentage of students eligible for free
and reduced-price meals in participating schools comparable to the
poverty percentage that would be obtained in a non-CEP school, and does
not unfairly inflate E-rate discounts on eligible services. As E-Rate
Central notes in its comments, schools and school districts electing
the CEP already have high low-income populations and most are already
at the current 90 percent discount level. Thus, a multiplier that
raises the percentage of students eligible for NSLP from, for example,
an 81 percent to 89 percent level, would have
[[Page 49188]]
no effect on the school's E-rate discount rate.
216. Allowing schools and school districts that participate in the
CEP to use their CEP data to determine eligibility for E-rate support
will also, as the West Virginia Department of Education explains, help
to alleviate confusion and additional burdens on schools and school
districts by eliminating the need for additional paperwork and
administrative costs. Moreover, by relying on a USDA change intended in
large part to reduce paperwork and other burdens on schools, this
decision is consistent with our other measures taken in this Report and
Order to alleviate applicant administrative burdens. Additionally, as
the State E-rate Coordinators' Alliance notes, permitting the use of
the CEP data for E-rate discount eligibility provides a predictable
means of calculating the discount level for new CEP schools.
217. We realize that the USDA has the statutory authority to change
the multiplier to a number between 1.3 and 1.6, and to apply a
different multiplier for different schools or local educational
agencies beginning on or after July 1, 2014. To simplify schools'
administrative burden, we will require CEP applicants to use the same
multiplier under the E-rate program for determining their poverty level
as required by the USDA for their reimbursement under the CEP. Unlike
applicants to the current E-rate program, CEP applicants will not be
required to calculate their discount rate every year, but for clarity
and administrative ease, shall use the calculation that they use during
the course of a four-year CEP cycle. However, if an applicant adjusts
that calculation for purposes of the CEP, it must also adjust it for
purposes of E-rate support.
4. Modifying the Requirements for Using School-Wide Income Surveys
218. We also direct USAC to revise its procedures to require
schools and school districts seeking to calculate their E-rate
discounts by using a school-wide income survey to base their E-rate
discount rate only on the surveys they actually collect beginning with
funding year 2015. Under the E-rate program, instead of using NSLP
data, schools and school districts can choose to use a federally
approved alternative mechanism, such as a survey, as a proxy for
poverty when calculating E-rate support. Until now, a school using a
school-wide income survey needed to collect surveys from at least 50
percent of its students. It could then calculate the percentage of
NSLP-eligible students from the returned surveys, and project that
percentage of eligibility for the entire school population, for
purposes of determining its discount rate under the E-rate program. We
agree with New Hope that allowing schools to use an alternative method
for determining eligibility is essential. However, we are concerned
that permitting schools to project the number of NSLP-eligible students
may provide an artificially higher eligibility percentage. Therefore,
in order to help protect against incentives to artificially inflate
eligibility percentages, beginning with funding year 2015, schools
electing to use a school wide income survey to determine the number of
students eligible for NSLP must calculate their discount based only the
surveys returned by their students that demonstrate that those students
would qualify for participation in the free and reduced school lunch
program to determine the school's discount level. For example, a school
with 100 students that distributes and collects 60 surveys showing that
52 students meet the eligibility criteria for the free and reduced
lunch program would be considered to have a 52 percent eligibility
percentage and therefore qualify for an 80 percent discount rate.
219. We considered the proposal offered by the Alaska Department of
Education & Early Development to allow projections based on a 75
percent return rate. We agree that would be more accurate than the
current 50 percent return rate. But, on balance, we find that it is
more equitable to base the discount rate for schools that conduct
surveys on the actual number of students whose survey responses
demonstrate that they meet the NSLP criteria. We thus direct USAC to
amend its procedures to require actual survey results for determining a
school's NSLP-eligibility from the surveys. We also take this
opportunity to remind applicants that, upon request from any
representative (including any auditor) appointed by a state education
department, USAC, the Commission, or any local, state or federal agency
with jurisdiction over the entity, they are required to provide copies
of all returned surveys supporting their discount eligibility.
C. Simplifying the Invoicing and Disbursement Processes
220. Consistent with our goal of reducing the administrative
burdens on applicants and service providers, we take several measures
related to the invoicing process to simplify and expedite funding
disbursement. First, we revise our rules to allow an applicant that
pays the full cost of the E-rate supported services to a service
provider to receive direct reimbursement from USAC. Second, we adopt
rules codifying USAC's existing invoice filing deadline, while allowing
applicants to request and automatically receive a single one-time 120-
day extension of the invoicing deadline. Taken together, these
modifications will yield an invoicing process that is simpler and
clearer, while still providing protections against waste, fraud, and
abuse.
1. Allowing Direct Invoicing
221. In response to widespread support in the comments, we revise
Sec. Sec. 54.504 and 54.514 of our rules to allow an applicant that
pays the full cost of the E-rate supported services to a service
provider to receive direct reimbursement from USAC, beginning with
funding year 2016. We agree with the commenters who argue this change
would improve the administrative process by eliminating unnecessary
invoicing steps, which in turn would speed disbursements to schools and
libraries. We also agree with applicants and service providers who
argue that revising the invoicing process to allow applicants to
receive direct reimbursement from USAC is a common-sense approach to
simplifying the administration of the E-rate program. Further, we agree
with those commenters who argue that providing an option for
reimbursing schools and libraries that have paid upfront for E-rate
supported services is consistent with section 254 of the Act. As the
courts have found, section 254 of the Act gives the Commission broad
discretion in administering the E-rate program. Nothing in the Act
prevents the payment of universal service funds directly to applicants
in the schools and libraries program. The only requirement in the Act
regarding reimbursement is that the service provider is made whole,
either through an offset against their contribution obligations, or
using the Commission's universal service mechanism. We find that the
revised Billed Entity Reimbursement (BEAR) process we adopt today
provides sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the applicant has
fully paid for the requested services and is entitled to direct
reimbursement from USAC, thereby satisfying Congress's statutory
requirement.
222. Under the current E-rate program's Billed Entity Applicant
Reimbursement (BEAR) process, if an applicant agrees to pay its service
provider in full before USAC has reimbursed the provider for E-rate
supported services, the applicant must submit an FCC Form 472 (BEAR
form)
[[Page 49189]]
to USAC but only after getting approval from the service provider.
After making a funding commitment and receiving invoices for eligible
services, USAC will then process payments to the service provider,
which in turn passes funds through to the applicant. The BEAR process
requires significant coordination between the applicant and service
provider for the applicant to receive payment. If a service provider is
unable to process a BEAR form because, for example, the service
provider has gone out of business or has filed for bankruptcy
protection prior to the applicant submitting the BEAR form, another
service provider (the Good Samaritan) can agree to serve as the conduit
and receive payment from USAC for purposes of passing the payment
through to the applicant. By removing the requirement that E-rate funds
pass through the service provider to the applicant, we remove the need
for a Good Samaritan procedure.
223. This change we adopt today will only affect applicants that
avail themselves of the BEAR process and elect to pay the entire cost
of the discounted service in advance of USAC's reimbursement. Some
commenters express concern that applicants should continue to have the
option of the SPI process, paying only their portion of the price of
eligible services and requiring the service provider to wait for
payment from USAC for the remaining portion of the price of the
eligible services. We take this opportunity to reiterate that E-rate
applicants continue to have the option of electing BEAR or SPI
reimbursement. Thus, when the applicant pays only the discounted cost
of the services directly to the service provider through the SPI
process, the service provider will continue to file a SPI form with
USAC to receive reimbursement.
224. Under the revised BEAR process we adopt today, an applicant
filing an FCC Form 471 and selecting reimbursement through the BEAR
process will be required to have on file with USAC current and accurate
information concerning where payments should be sent. In accordance
with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), all universal
service disbursements must be made by electronic funds transfer.
Accordingly, schools and libraries that choose to utilize the BEAR
process must provide USAC with bank account information from a bank
that can accept electronic transfers of money. We expect there will be
additional information that USAC will also need to process payment to
applicants, and we direct the Bureau and OMD to work with USAC to
collect from applicants that use the new BEAR process all the
information USAC will need to process such payments while protecting
the integrity of the program. Further, for purposes of program
integrity, payments will not be made to consultants, but only directly
to schools or libraries.
225. We direct the Bureau and OMD to work with USAC to implement
the new direct reimbursement process. We recognize that the current FCC
Form 472 requires a service provider to certify that: (1) It must remit
the discount amount authorized by the fund administrator to the Billed
Entity Applicant; (2) it must remit payment of the approved discount
amount to the Billed Entity Applicant; and (3) it is in compliance with
the rules and orders governing the schools and libraries universal
service support program. Because service providers will no longer serve
as a pass-through for payment, they will not be required to approve
every FCC Form 472. However, the service provider certifications on the
current FCC Form 472 are crucial for protecting the program against
waste, fraud and abuse. We therefore revise Sec. 54.504(f) of our
rules by adding a paragraph requiring each service provider to certify
on the FCC Form 473 that the service provider has complied with the E-
rate invoicing rules and regulations. Specifically, the service
provider will be required to certify that the bills or invoices that it
provides to applicants are accurate, and that the services it provides
are eligible for E-rate support.
2. Adopting Invoicing Deadlines
226. We also codify USAC's existing invoice filing deadline to
allow applicants to request and automatically receive a single one-time
120-day extension of the invoicing deadline. Codifying the invoicing
deadline will provide certainty to applicants and service providers.
Providing certainty on invoicing deadlines will also allow USAC to de-
obligate committed funds immediately after the invoicing deadline has
passed, providing increased certainty about how much funding is
available to be carried forward in future funding years. The invoice
deadline extension rule will be effective beginning in funding year
2014.
227. As the Commission has explained, filing deadlines are
necessary for the efficient administration of the E-rate program. We
agree with commenters that the current invoice deadline--the latter of
120 days after the last day to receive service, or the date of the FCC
Form 486 notification letter--provides the right balance between the
need for efficient administration of the program, and the need to
ensure that applicants and service providers have sufficient time to
finish their own invoicing processes. We also agree that codifying the
existing deadline provides certainty to program participants, while
generally providing sufficient flexibility based on an applicant's or
service provider's specific circumstances.
228. At the same time, we agree with commenters that there may be
circumstances beyond some applicants' or service providers' control
that could prevent them from meeting the 120-day invoice filing
deadline. Therefore, we adopt a rule allowing applicants to seek and
receive from USAC a single one-time invoicing extension for any given
funding request, provided the extension request is made no later than
what would otherwise be the deadline for submitting invoices: The
latter of 120 days after the last day to receive service, or the date
of the FCC Form 486 notification letter. By adopting such a rule, we
eliminate the need for applicants and service providers to identify a
reason for the requested extension and the need for USAC to determine
whether such timely requests meet certain criteria, which will ease the
administrative burden of invoice extension requests on USAC. In the
interest of efficient program administration, USAC shall grant no other
invoicing deadline extensions. Moreover, in considering waivers of our
new invoicing rules, we find that it is generally not in the public
interest to waive our invoicing rules, and therefore the Bureau should
grant waivers of those rules in extraordinary circumstances.
229. In light of our codification of the invoice deadline, we
direct USAC, working with OMD, to determine the appropriate de-
obligation date for funds against which an invoice has not been
received for a particular funding year, taking into account the
existence of pending appeals, holds, investigations, and other matters.
Our goal is to have USAC establish, working with OMD, a date on which
the bulk of undisbursed funds from a given funding year can be de-
obligated. By de-obligating those funding commitments, USAC will have
greater certainty with respect to the amount of funds from past funding
years that can be carried forward for future requests.
230. With respect to appeals or requests to USAC or the Commission
seeking permission to submit invoices after USAC's invoicing deadline
for earlier funding years, we direct USAC
[[Page 49190]]
and the Bureau to consider whether such requests were made in good
faith and within a reasonable time period after the services were
provided or whether other extraordinary circumstances exist that
support such a request. In the Canon-McMillan Order, the Bureau
established a precedent of granting relief to petitioners demonstrating
good faith in complying with the invoicing deadline despite submitting
very late invoices. At the same time the Bureau recognized that invoice
filing deadlines are necessary for the efficient administration of the
E-rate program and that as schools and libraries continue to
participate in the E-rate program, participants should ``become more
experienced with the invoice requirements of the program.'' Until now,
USAC had allowed unlimited invoice extensions under certain
circumstances, and the Bureau, acting on delegated authority, has been
generous when deciding invoicing deadline appeals. As reflected in the
rules we adopt today, we find that while USAC's procedures were
reasonable in the past, firmer limits on invoicing extensions are
required at this time. Therefore, with respect to invoicing deadlines
for earlier funding years, absent extraordinary circumstances
justifying the failure to timely submit invoices, we expect the Bureau
and USAC to deny any requests or appeals seeking an invoicing deadline
extension of more than 12 months after the last date to invoice.
D. Creating a Tribal Consultation, Training, and Outreach Program
231. As part of our overall effort to modernize the E-rate program,
we take several actions today to raise the profile of the E-rate
program and ensure that Tribal schools and libraries are able to
participate effectively in the program. Specifically, we commit to
enhance the Commission's Tribal consultation, training, and outreach,
and we seek to gain a better understanding of the current state of
connectivity among Tribal schools and libraries to enable the
Commission to take steps that will reduce the digital divide and
promote high-speed broadband connectivity to Tribal lands.
232. The Commission recognizes the historic federal trust
relationship and responsibilities it has with federally recognized
Tribal Nations. Accordingly, we have a longstanding policy of promoting
Tribal self-sufficiency and economic development and have developed a
record of helping to ensure that Tribal Nations and those living on
Tribal lands obtain access to communications services. It is well
documented that communities on Tribal lands have historically had less
access to both basic and advanced forms of telecommunications services
than any other segment of the U.S. population. We recognize that a
digital divide persists and extends not only to residents of Tribal
lands, but also to Tribal anchor institutions such as schools and
libraries located on Tribal lands. Given the challenges many Tribal
Nations face in lacking access to even basic services, we recognize the
important role of universal service support and the E-rate program in
helping provide telecommunications services to and on remote and
underserved Tribal lands. We thus take these actions today to gain a
better understanding of the current state of connectivity among Tribal
schools and libraries and to empower Tribal Nations to meet the high-
speed broadband needs of their schools and libraries.
233. Consultation. We find that more extensive government-to-
government consultation with Tribal Nations is necessary to understand
both the need for E-rate support on Tribal lands and how to
successfully connect Tribal schools and libraries with modern high-
speed communications. One benefit of consultation will be the
opportunity to collect better data on the connectivity needs of Tribal
schools and libraries. While some data was provided in response to the
E-rate Modernization NPRM, we need to know much more about connectivity
and the use of E-rate support on Tribal lands. In particular, we
recognize the need for data on how E-rate has impacted connectivity on
Tribal lands to date, which Tribal schools and libraries receive E-rate
and for what uses, what services are available to those schools and
libraries, what the price structure is on Tribal lands, what speeds are
available and needed on Tribal lands, and where broadband
infrastructure still is most needed. We recognize that, without Tribal-
specific data, we cannot make the most informed decisions for provision
of E-rate support to Tribal Nations.
234. Many Tribal commenters agree and advocate for the need to
collect data to ensure that all schools and libraries, including Tribal
schools and libraries, have affordable access to high-speed broadband
that supports digital learning and educational mandates. NCAI also
advocates for coordination with certain inter-Tribal organizations to
collect the necessary data. We therefore delegate authority to the
Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP), in coordination with the
Bureau and OMD, to conduct government-to-government consultation for
the purpose of determining how best to gather data on current
connectivity levels and help the Commission better determine the need
for E-rate support among Tribal schools and libraries. We expect that
ONAP's experience in working with Tribal Nations will inform their
decisions on how best to conduct this consultation, in coordination
with the Bureau and OMD. Our hope is that, by gaining a better
understanding of the current state of connectivity among Tribal schools
and libraries, we will be in a better position to more effectively meet
the high-speed broadband needs of the Native Nations of the United
States.
235. Training. We find that training tailored to the specific and
often unique needs of Tribal schools and libraries is necessary to
ensure that Tribal Nations are informed and empowered to participate
fully in the E-rate program. In response to several Tribal-specific
inquiries in the E-rate Modernization NPRM, commenters stressed the
need to adopt E-rate program reforms that serve to increase access to
high-speed broadband technologies for Tribal lands, specifically Tribal
anchor institutions, and encouraged both rule changes and
administrative changes. For example, NNTRC requested Tribal-specific
training and outreach to ensure that Tribal schools and libraries are
aware of the E-rate program and have at least a basic understanding of
the E-rate process, services, and eligibility, all to ensure that
Tribal Nations have equal access to participation in the E-rate
program. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation stated
that Tribal Nations are unable to fully benefit from the E-rate program
due to a lack of available training on the program. Further, a 2011
study of Tribal libraries by the Association of Tribal Archives,
Libraries, and Museums (ATALM) found that the top three barriers to
Tribal library participation in the E-rate program are lack of
awareness of the program, uncertainty about eligibility, and a
complicated application process. This study found that, while 46
percent of Tribal libraries are the only source of free public Internet
access in their communities, less than 5 percent of Tribal libraries
benefit from the E-rate program (as compared to 51 percent of public
libraries).
236. USAC currently conducts a series of applicant trainings during
the fall of each year, usually located in large cities and focused on
issues of general importance to E-rate applicants. As part of the
training we adopt today, we envision that ONAP, in coordination with
USAC, would help provide E-rate specific training to schools and
libraries. We therefore direct USAC to work with ONAP to develop and
provide Tribal-
[[Page 49191]]
specific E-rate training targeted to Tribal schools and libraries. We
direct ONAP, in consultation with the Bureau and OMD to advise USAC on
the most appropriate timing and mechanism to provide such training,
outreach, and materials to Tribal schools and libraries. We also direct
ONAP to coordinate with USAC to incorporate and distribute USAC E-rate
training materials when mobilizing the Native Learning Lab.
237. Outreach. In conjunction with the training described, we
direct USAC, in close coordination with and under the guidance of ONAP,
the Bureau, and OMD, to create a formal Tribal liaison at USAC to
assist with Tribal-specific outreach, training, and assistance. We
expect that USAC's Tribal liaison will coordinate closely with ONAP,
the Bureau, and OMD on all Tribal training initiatives. The Tribal
liaison's responsibilities will require direct communication with
Tribal schools and libraries throughout the E-rate process and will
include helping to conduct and coordinate Tribal-specific trainings and
training materials, initiating and responding to Tribal ``Helping
Applicants To Succeed'' requests and visits, fielding questions from
Tribal schools and libraries regarding the E-rate program and process,
and attending national and regional Tribal conferences or meetings
where Tribal school and libraries are present. The creation of this
position at USAC and the required coordination with ONAP, the Bureau,
and OMD, will further our goal of ensuring that Tribal schools and
libraries can participate fully and effectively in the E-rate program.
E. Requiring Filing of Appeals With USAC
238. Consistent with our goal of streamlining the administration of
the E-rate program and improving the E-rate appeals process, we revise
Sec. 54.719 of our rules to require parties aggrieved by an action
taken by a division of USAC, including the Schools and Libraries
Division, to first seek review of that decision by USAC before filing
an appeal with the Commission. The standards for evaluating the merits
of these appeals will be unchanged and affected parties will still have
the right to seek Commission review of such decisions, as provided in
the Commission's rules. This rule change will become effective 30 days
after the publication of this Report and Order in the Federal Register.
239. Currently, any party may seek Commission review of an action
taken by USAC without first seeking review of that decision by USAC.
One result of the current system is a growing number of E-rate appeals
with the Commission. While we have made a concerted effort to reduce
the backlog of appeals, a backlog remains and we continue to receive
numerous appeals on a monthly basis. The appeals backlog is further
exacerbated by the fact that aggrieved parties often decline to seek
review from USAC and appeal directly to the Commission.
240. We find that requiring parties to first file appeals of USAC
decisions with USAC itself before seeking Commission review will
improve efficiency in the appeals process. It will reduce the number of
appeals coming to the Commission, and allow USAC an initial opportunity
to correct any of its own errors, and to receive and review additional
information provided by aggrieved parties without having to involve the
Commission staff. We remind parties filing an appeal with USAC to
follow USAC's appeals guidelines and provide USAC with all relevant
information and documentation necessary for USAC to make an informed
decision on an appeal. USAC cannot waive our rules; therefore parties
seeking only a waiver of our rules are not governed by this
requirement, but instead must seek relief directly from the Commission
or the Bureau.
F. Directing USAC To Adopt Additional Measures To Improve the
Administration of the E-Rate Program
241. We adopt a number of additional measures to ease the burden
upon applicants, expedite commitments, and ensure that all applicants
receive complete and timely information to help inform their decisions
regarding E-rate purchases. In particular, we adopt a specific
application review and funding commitment target for all category one
funding requests as a performance measure in evaluating our progress
towards this goal; continue to work on modernizing USAC's E-rate
Information Technology (IT) systems; require the publishing of all non-
confidential E-rate data in open, electronic formats; and direct USAC
to make its communications simpler and clearer so that applicants and
service providers will have no difficulty understanding the information
and direction that USAC provides them.
1. Speeding Review of Applications, Commitment Decisions and Funding
Disbursements
242. Many of the rule revisions we adopt today will help speed
review of applications, funding commitment decisions and funding
disbursements. In this proceeding, we received many comments
complaining about the delay in receiving funding commitments. We
recognize that those delays have real and substantial impacts on
schools and libraries' willingness and ability to purchase high-speed
broadband services. USAC, working closely with OMD, has already
committed to overhaul its application review process for the current
funding year 2014 and the initial results are impressive. As noted, by
July 1, 2013, USAC had only committed approximately $181 million in
support. By contrast, as of July 1, 2014, USAC has already committed
approximately $1.22 billion in support. In 2013, USAC did not reach $1
billion in commitments until October.
243. We applaud the work that USAC and OMD have done in the last
few months. Building on that momentum, we adopt a specific application
review and funding commitment target for all funding requests as a
performance measure in evaluating our progress toward meeting our goal
of streamlining the administrative process. We believe that
establishing a specific target will help to hold USAC further
accountable for more quickly reviewing and issuing category one funding
commitments in future funding years. We again remind applicants that
failure to timely respond to requested information by USAC could delay
the issuance of a commitment, and we therefore encourage applicants to
respond expeditiously and completely to all information and
documentation requests by USAC.
2. Modernizing USAC's E-Rate Information Technology Systems
244. We also direct USAC and OMD to continue to work on modernizing
USAC's E-rate IT systems. Numerous commenters express frustration with
USAC's E-rate IT systems, and recommend that USAC create an online
portal with pre-populated information for returning applicants and
service providers to reduce administrative burden and errors, and to
provide applicants and service providers with easy access to historic
information as well as information about the status of their funding
and invoice requests.
245. OMD and the Bureau have already begun the process of working
with USAC to modernize its E-rate IT systems. We recognize that this is
a long-term project. We therefore direct OMD and the Bureau to continue
USAC's IT modernization work, with a focus on easing the administrative
burdens on E-rate applicants and service providers, while protecting
against waste, fraud and abuse, and on collecting high-quality data
that will assist us in measuring our progress
[[Page 49192]]
towards the goals we adopt today. We note that measuring progress
towards our goals, particularly the first two goals, will require USAC
to collect a wealth of data from applicants and service providers in a
manner that will allow us the flexibility to manipulate and analyze
that data in a variety of ways.
3. Requiring Open and Accessible E-Rate Data
246. We direct USAC to timely publish through electronic means all
non-confidential E-rate data in open, standardized, electronic formats,
consistent with the principles of the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB's) Open Data Policy. USAC must provide the public with the ability
to easily view and download non-confidential E-rate data, for both
individual datasets and aggregate data. We further direct USAC to
design open and accessible data solutions in a modular format to allow
extensibility and agile development, such as providing for the use of
application programming interfaces (APIs) where appropriate and
releasing the code, as open source code, where feasible. USAC's
solutions must be accessible to people with disabilities, as is
required for federal agency information technology. The solutions must
also, on a going-forward basis, incorporate international standards and
best practices for security and privacy controls.
247. The record supports USAC releasing E-rate data in as open a
manner as possible so that the schools and libraries that receive
support from the program and their associated service providers can
track the status of their E-rate applications and requests for
reimbursement and so that they and the public at large can benefit from
greater program transparency and public accountability. Making non-
confidential E-rate data open and accessible will allow members of the
public to develop new and innovative methods to analyze E-rate data,
which will benefit all stakeholders, including this Commission as we
continue to improve the program. Releasing E-rate data in this manner
should also enable greater integration with other datasets such as
those maintained by NCES and those maintained by IMLS. This integration
will create opportunities for new and innovative analyses about
connectivity to and within our nation's schools and libraries.
4. Adopting Plain Language Review
248. We are concerned that many of USAC's standard communications
are excessively lengthy and difficult to understand. Because the E-rate
program has a wide range of large and small stakeholders, USAC should
be particularly careful to communicate in a simple, direct, and user-
friendly manner. Plain language is an essential tool for communicating
information effectively to the public about decisions and benefits. We
therefore direct USAC to work with OMD to implement a full review and
revision, as appropriate, of USAC's most commonly used correspondence
using plain language, before the beginning of funding year 2016. We
find that this review and the improvement to USAC's communications that
result will reduce applicant confusion and ensure parties have the
information necessary to comply with or appeal USAC's decisions. These
requirements will be effective beginning in funding year 2015.
G. Protecting Against Waste Fraud and Abuse
249. While we seek to modernize the E-rate program and ease the
burdens upon applicants and service providers, we are extremely mindful
of our commitment to ensuring the program's integrity by protecting
against waste, fraud and abuse. We believe that proper documentation is
crucial for demonstrating applicant and vendor compliance with E-rate
rules, and for uncovering waste, fraud and abuse in the program,
whether through compliance audits or investigations. Therefore, we
revise our document retention requirements and compliance procedures
and clarify that applicants must permit inspectors on their premises as
described below.
1. Extending the E-Rate Document Retention Requirements
250. We revise Sec. 54.516(a) of our rules to extend the document
retention period from five to 10 years after the latter of the last day
of the applicable funding year, or the service delivery deadline for
the funding request. As the Commission explained in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM, the current five year document retention
requirement is not adequate for purposes of litigation under the False
Claims Act (FCA), which can involve conduct that occurred substantially
more than five years prior to the filing of a complaint. We recognize
commenters' concerns that extending the mandatory document retention
period to 10 years may create additional administrative burdens and
incur document storage costs. However, we agree with the San Jacinto
School District that electronic storage of documents can dramatically
reduce these costs. We therefore strongly encourage schools, libraries,
consortia, and service providers to take advantage of digital storage
mechanisms. As the Commission did in both the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, 76 FR 78384, December 16, 2011, and Lifeline Reform
Order, 77 FR 12784, March 2, 2012, we conclude that the benefits to the
integrity of the program outweigh the burdens of extending our document
retention rules to 10 years. Our action thus ensures greater
consistency across the various universal service programs.
251. We also modify Sec. 54.516 of our rules to refer to
``schools, libraries and consortia'' rather than just ``schools and
libraries,'' thereby providing clarity that all applicants (as well as
all service providers) are required to comply with our document
retention and other auditing rules.
2. Allowing Access for Inspections
252. To support E-rate compliance audits and enforcement
investigations, we also revise Sec. 54.516 to clarify that E-rate
applicants and service providers must permit auditors, investigators,
attorneys or any other person appointed by a state education
department, USAC, the Commission or any local, state or federal agency
with jurisdiction over the entity to enter their premises to conduct E-
rate compliance inspections. Allowing auditors and investigative
personnel to inspect an applicant's premises is necessary to ensure
that the applicant is in compliance with E-rate rules. The list of
entities entitled to appoint representatives to enter the premises of
an applicant or service provider parallels the list of entities
entitled to seek production of records from applicants and service
providers.
VI. Delegation To Revise Rules
253. Given the complexities associated with modernizing the E-rate
program, modifying our rules, and the other programmatic changes we
adopt in this Report and Order, we delegate authority to the Bureau to
make any further rule revisions as necessary to ensure the changes to
the program adopted in this Report and Order are reflected in our
rules. This includes correcting any conflicts between new and/or
revised rules and existing rules as well as addressing an omissions or
oversights. If any such rule changes are warranted the Bureau shall be
responsible for such change. We note that any entity that disagrees
with a rule change made on delegated authority will have the
opportunity to file an
[[Page 49193]]
Application for Review by the full Commission.
VII. Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
254. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission)
included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in the E-rate Modernization
NPRM in WC Docket No. 13-184. The Commission sought written public
comment on the proposals in the E-rate Modernization NPRM, including
comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
conforms to the RFA.
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule
255. The Commission is required by section 254 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 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.
256. In July 2013, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking seeking public comment on proposals to update the E-rate
program to focus on 21st Century broadband needs of schools and
libraries. Then, in February 2014, the Wireline Competition Bureau
issued a Public Notice seeking focused comment on issues raised in the
E-rate Modernization NPRM. In this Report and Order, the Commission
adopts a number of the proposals put forward in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM and discussed in the E-rate Modernization Public
Notice.
257. This Report and Order continues the Commission's efforts to
promote broadband access for schools and libraries. In it, we adopt
goals and measures for the E-rate program to (1) ensure affordable
access to high-speed broadband sufficient to support digital learning
in schools and robust connectivity for all libraries, (2) maximize the
cost-effectiveness of spending for E-rate supported purchases, and (3)
make the E-rate application process and other E-rate processes fast,
simple and efficient.
258. The rule changes we adopt support these goals and fall into
three conceptual categories. First, we ensure affordable access to
high-speed broadband sufficient to support digital learning in schools
and robust connectivity for all libraries by providing more reliable
and equitable funding for broadband without schools and libraries and
by phasing down support for legacy services. Second, we maximize the
cost-effectiveness of spending for E-rate supported purchases by
increasing transparency in the purchasing process, encouraging
consortium purchasing, and amending the lowest corresponding price
(LCP) rule. Third, we make the E-rate application process and other E-
rate processes fast, simple, and efficient by simplifying the
application process; simplifying discount rate calculations;
simplifying the invoicing and disbursement process; requiring filing of
appeals with USAC; directing USAC to adopt additional measures to
streamline the administration of the E-rate program; and protecting
against waste, fraud, and abuse.
C. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments to the IRFA
259. No comments specifically addressed the IRFA.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules May Apply
260. 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
28.2 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.''
261. 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.
262. Small entities potentially affected by the proposals herein
include eligible schools and libraries and the eligible service
providers offering them discounted services.
263. 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.
264. 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
[[Page 49194]]
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data,
1,307 incumbent carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an
estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 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 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.
265. 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 2010 Trends
Report, 359 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision
of interexchange services. Of these 300 IXCs, an estimated 317 have
1,500 or few employees and 42 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of
interexchange services are small businesses.
266. 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 2010 Trends
Report, 1,442 CAPs and competitive local exchange carriers (competitive
LECs) reported that they were engaged in the provision of competitive
local exchange services. Of these 1,442 CAPs and competitive LECs, an
estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most
providers of competitive exchange services are small businesses.
267. 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.
268. 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 2010 Trends Report, 413 carriers reported
that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated
261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500
employees. We have estimated that 261 of these are small under the SBA
small business size standard.
269. 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.
270. In addition, in the Paging Second Report and Order, 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.
271. Currently, there are approximately 74,000 Common Carrier
Paging licenses. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone
Service, 291 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision
of ``paging and messaging'' services. Of these, an estimated 289 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.
272. 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
[[Page 49195]]
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.
273. Vendors of Internal Connections: Telephone Apparatus
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows:
``This industry comprises 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.
274. 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.
275. 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 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 for Small Entities
276. Several of our rule changes will result in additional
recordkeeping requirements for small entities. For all of those rule
changes, we have determined that the benefit the rule change will bring
for the program outweighs the burden of the increased recordkeeping
requirement. Other rule changes decrease recordkeeping requirements for
small entities.
1. Increase in Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
277. Compliance burdens. All of the rules we implement impose some
burden on small entities by requiring them to become familiar with the
new rule to comply with it. For many new rules, such as those codifying
invoicing deadlines, increasing price transparency, phasing down
support for voice services, eliminating support for telephone features,
and reducing the maximum discount rate for internal connections, the
burden of becoming familiar with the new rule in order to comply with
it is the only burden the rule imposes.
278. Connectivity metrics. The metrics we adopt will require
applicants to provide data on connectivity, demand costs and LAN/WLAN
capacity. The benefit collection of this data will provide us by giving
us a better understanding of how the E-rate program is accomplishing
its goals outweighs the burden it will impose on small entities.
279. Internal connections funding. Our rule change to provide more
funding for internal connections will increase recordkeeping burdens on
small entities who previously did not apply for funding for internal
connections because funding was not available to them. The benefit of
receiving funding for internal connections clearly outweighs the burden
on applying for this funding.
280. Preferred master contracts. Our rule change to allow the
Bureau to designate preferred master contracts that applicants would be
required to include in their bid evaluations even if the master
contract was not submitted as a bid would increase recordkeeping
requirements on small entities because it would require many small E-
rate applicants to consider an additional bid in their evaluations. The
significant savings the Fund and applicants would realize from
including preferred master contracts in bid evaluations justifies this
added burden.
281. Price transparency. We allow applicants to opt out of public
disclosure by USAC of their E-rate pricing data if such disclosure
would violate a state law, local rule, or an existing long-term
contract by certifying and citing to the specific statute, rule or
other restriction barring publication of pricing data. Making this
certification will increase recordkeeping requirements for those
applicants who wish to opt out, but allowing the certification is
necessary to ensure consistency between E-rate rules and state and
local laws.
282. Determining rurality for school districts. Requiring
applicants to determine whether a majority of their schools are in
rural areas increases recordkeeping requirements. The benefit to rural
applicants of receiving an additional discount justifies this
additional burden.
283. Document retention. Extending the retention period from five
to 10 years after the latter of the last day of the applicable funding
year, or the last day of delivery of services for that funding year
increases recordkeeping requirements and costs for E-rate recipients
and service providers. Our interest in combatting waste, fraud and
abuse by litigating matters under the False Claims Act, which can
involve conduct that relates back substantially
[[Page 49196]]
more than five years, justifies this additional burden.
284. Electronic filing. Although filing electronically is easier
than filing on paper for most applicants, we recognize that requiring
electronic filing may impose additional burdens for applicants who are
unfamiliar with the electronic filing process. Nonetheless, the
efficiencies for USAC that requiring electronic filing creates outweigh
the burden on applicants.
285. Maximum term for multi-year contracts. Our requirement that
contracts for E-rate supported services not exceed five years, which an
exception permitting contracts for deployment of new fiber to schools
or libraries to not exceed ten years, could increase reporting
requirements for some applicants by requiring them to negotiate
contracts more frequently than they otherwise would. Our interest in
promoting cost-effective purchasing justifies this additional burden.
286. Requiring filing of appeals with USAC. Requiring applicants to
first file appeals with USAC before appealing decision to the
Commission could increase recordkeeping requirements by requiring
applicants who planned to appeal directly to the Commission to file an
additional appeal before doing so. The benefit of reducing the
Commission's E-rate appeal backlog outweighs this burden.
287. Changes to ESL. We recognize that the changes to focus the
category two Eligible Services List (ESL) on broadband may require
applicants to cost allocate newly-ineligible services. E-rate
recipients have always been required to cost allocate ineligible
components. In many instances, cost allocation should not be difficult
because these services appear on separate line items on bills. Even
when ineligible services do not appear as separate line items on bills,
the savings to the program from these changes to the ESL outweighs the
administrative burden of cost allocation for program participants.
2. Decrease in Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
288. Focusing support on broadband. Limiting internal connections
support to routers, switches, wireless access points, internal cabling,
wireless controller systems, data protection services, and the software
supporting each of these components used to distribute high-speed
broadband throughout school buildings and libraries will decrease
recordkeeping requirements for small entities because they will no
longer go through the application process for services that have been
made ineligible.
289. Simplified application process for multi-year contracts. Our
new procedure for funding commitments for multi-year contracts for
priority one services that is no longer than five years will alleviate
reporting burdens on small entities because, in many circumstances,
applicants will only be required to submit an FCC Form 471 for the
first year of a multi-year contract. For subsequent years, applicants
will be permitted to use a streamlined application process.
290. Eliminating technology plan requirements. We eliminate the
technology plan requirement for applicants seeking category two
services, which will decrease recordkeeping requirements.
291. Exempting certain low-dollar purchases from competitive
bidding rules. The exemption to our competitive bidding rules that
allows E-rate applicants to purchase certain business-class Internet
access reduces recordkeeping requirements related to the competitive
bidding process. Although the requirement that applicants certify that
they have purchased services that are eligible for an exemption imposes
a minimal recordkeeping requirement, the overall effect of the rule
change is a reduction in recordkeeping requirements.
292. Preferred master contracts. We also permit applicants to take
services on a preferred master contract designated by the Bureau
without filing an FCC Form 470. This reduces the burdens associated
with filing an FCC Form 470 and conducting a bid evaluation.
293. District-wide discount rates. The requirement that applicants
use a district-wide data to determine their discount rates will reduce
reporting requirements because districts will no longer have to perform
a discount rate calculation for each school within a district.
294. Invoicing. Applicants who submit a Billed Entity Application
for Reimbursement (BEAR) Form may now receive reimbursement directly
from USAC, rather than having the service provider serve as an
intermediary. This alleviates reporting requirements on the service
provider.
295. Plain language review. The plain language review of USAC's
standard forms that we order make it easier for small entities to
comply with our rules by reducing applicant confusion and ensuring that
entities have the information necessary to comply with our rules.
3. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
296. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
297. This rulemaking could impose minimal additional burdens on
small entities. We considered alternatives to the rulemaking changes
that increase projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance
requirements for small entities.
4. Alternatives Permitted
298. Electronic filing. To accommodate applicants who have
insufficient connectivity or other administrative resources to file
electronically with USAC, we permit an exception to our electronic
filing requirement that allows those applicants to file applicants and
other documents with USAC using paper.
299. Document retention. We encourage applicants to take advantage
of electronic storage of documents to mitigate the additional expense
our increase of the document retention requirement from five to 10
years imposes.
5. Alternatives Considered and Rejected
300. Connectivity metrics. The best source for obtain the data we
need for connectivity metrics is applicants. Although we could obtain
this data from service providers, it is less burdensome for an
applicant to provide connectivity data for itself than it would be for
a service provider to furnish it for all of its customers who receive
E-rate support.
F. Report to Congress
301. 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
[[Page 49197]]
Report and Order and the FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be
published in the Federal Register.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
302. This Report and Order contains new information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the
general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on
the revised information collection requirements contained in this
proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, the Commission
previously sought specific comment on how it might further reduce the
information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.
H. Congressional Review Act
303. 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.
304. For additional information on this proceeding, contact James
Bachtell at (202) 418-2694 or Kate Dumouchel at (202) 418-1839 in the
Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
VIII. Ordering Clauses
305. Accordingly, it is ordered, that pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1 through 4, 201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and
403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.
151-154, 201-205, 254, 303(r), and 403, and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1302, this Report and
Order is Adopted effective September 18, 2014, except to the extent
expressly addressed below.
306. It is further ordered, that pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1 through 4, 201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and
403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154,
201-205, 254, 303(r), and 403, and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 1302, Part 54 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 54, is Amended as set forth below, and
such rule amendments shall be effective September 18, 2014 of the
Report and Order in the Federal Register, except for Sec. Sec.
54.502(b)(2) through (3) and (5), 54.503(c), 54.504(a) and (f),
54.507(d), 54.514(a), 54.516(a) through (c), and 54.720(a), which are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and will become effective upon
announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval of the subject
information collection requirements; and except for amendments in
Sec. Sec. 54.500, 54.501(a)(1), 54.502(a), 54.507(a) through (c) and
(e) through (f), 54.516, and 54.570(b) and (c), which shall become
effective on July 1, 2015; and amendments in Sec. Sec. 54.504(f)(4)
and (f)(5) and 54.514(c), which shall become effective on July 1, 2016.
307. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs 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.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl D. Todd,
Deputy 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
Subpart A--General Information
0
1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 1, 4(i), 5, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254,
303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and
section 706 of the Communications Act of 1996, as amended; 47 U.S.C.
151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and
1302 unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 54.5 by revising the definition of ``Internet access''
to read as follows:
Sec. 54.5 Terms and definitions.
* * * * *
Internet access. ``Internet access'' includes the following
elements:
(1) The transmission of information as common carriage; and
(2) The transmission of information as part of a gateway to an
information service, when that transmission does not involve the
generation or alteration of the content of information, but may include
data transmission, address translation, protocol conversion, billing
management, introductory information content, and navigational systems
that enable users to access information services, and that do not
affect the presentation of such information to users.
* * * * *
Subpart F--Universal Service Support for Schools and Libraries
0
3. Amend Sec. 54.500 by removing the alphabetical paragraph
designations and adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``basic
maintenance,'' ``consortium,'' ``internal connections,'' ``managed
internal broadband services,'' and ``voice services'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 54.500 Terms and definitions.
Basic maintenance. A service is eligible for support as a ``basic
maintenance'' 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 by E-
rate 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.
* * * * *
Consortium. A ``consortium'' is any local, statewide, regional, or
interstate cooperative association of schools and/or libraries eligible
for E-rate support that seeks competitive bids for eligible services or
funding for eligible services on behalf of some or all of its members.
Consortium may also include health care providers eligible under
subpart G, and public sector (governmental) entities, including, but
not limited to, state colleges and state universities, state
educational broadcasters, counties, and municipalities, although such
entities are not eligible for support. Eligible schools and libraries
may not join consortia with ineligible private sector members unless
the pre-discount prices of any services that such consortium receives
are generally tariffed rates.
* * * * *
Internal connections. A service is eligible for support as a
component of an institution's ``internal connections'' if such service
is necessary to transport or distribute broadband 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.
* * * * *
Managed internal broadband services. A service is eligible for
support as
[[Page 49198]]
``managed internal broadband services'' if provided by a third party
for the operation, management, and/or monitoring of the eligible
components of a school or library local area network (LAN) and wireless
LAN.
* * * * *
Voice services. ``Voice services'' include local phone service,
long distance service, plain old telephone service (POTS), radio loop,
800 service, satellite telephone, shared telephone service, Centrex,
wireless telephone service such as cellular, interconnected voice over
Internet protocol (VoIP), and the circuit capacity dedicated to
providing voice services.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 54.501 by revising the section heading and paragraph
(a)(1), by removing paragraph (c)(1), and by redesignating paragraphs
(c)(2) and (3) as paragraphs (c)(1) and (2), respectively.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 54.501 Eligible recipients.
(a) * * *
(1) Only schools meeting the statutory definition of ``elementary
school'' and ``secondary school'' as defined in Sec. 54.500 of this
subpart, and not excluded under paragraphs (a)(2) or (3) of this
section shall be eligible for discounts on telecommunications and other
supported services under this subpart.
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec. 54.502 to read as follows:
Sec. 54.502 Eligible services.
(a) Supported services. All supported services are listed in the
Eligible Services List as updated annually in accordance with paragraph
(b) of this section. The services in this subpart will be supported 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. The supported services fall within the
following general categories:
(1) Category one. Telecommunications services, telecommunications,
and Internet access, as defined in Sec. 54.5 and described in the
Eligible Services List are category one supported services.
(2) Category two. Internal connections, basic maintenance and
managed internal broadband services as defined in Sec. 54.500 and
described in the Eligible Services List are category two supported
services.
(b) Funding years 2015 and 2016. Libraries, schools, or school
districts with schools that receive funding for category two services
in funding years 2015 and/or 2016 shall be eligible for support
pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Five-year budget. Each eligible school or library shall be
eligible for a budgeted amount of support for category two services
over a five-year funding cycle. Excluding support for internal
connections received prior to funding year 2015, each school or library
shall be eligible for the total available budget less any support
received for category two services in the prior four funding years.
(2) School budget. Each eligible school shall be eligible for
support for category two services up to a pre-discount price of $150
per student over a five-year funding cycle. Applicants shall provide
the student count per school, calculated at the time that the discount
is calculated each funding year. New schools may estimate the number of
students, but shall repay any support provided in excess of the maximum
budget based on student enrollment the following funding year.
(3) Library budget. Each eligible library shall be eligible for
support for category two services, up to a pre-discount price of $2.30
per square foot over a five-year funding cycle. Libraries shall provide
the total area for all floors, in square feet, of each library outlet
separately, including all areas enclosed by the outer walls of the
library outlet and occupied by the library, including those areas off-
limits to the public.
(4) Funding floor. Each eligible school and library will be
eligible for support for category two services up to at least a pre-
discount price of $9,200 over five funding years.
(5) Requests. Applicants shall request support for category two
services for each school or library based on the number of students per
school building or square footage per library building. Category two
funding for a school or library may not be used for another school or
library. If an applicant requests less than the maximum budget
available for a school or library, the applicant may request the
remaining balance in a school's or library's category two budget in
subsequent funding years of a five year cycle. The costs for category
two services shared by multiple eligible entities shall be divided
reasonably between each of the entities for which support is sought in
that funding year.
(6) Non-instructional buildings. Support is not available for
category two services provided to or within non-instructional school
buildings or separate library administrative buildings unless those
category two services are essential for the effective transport of
information to or within one or more instructional buildings of a
school or non-administrative library buildings, or the Commission has
found that the use of those services meets the definition of
educational purpose, as defined in Sec. 54.500. When applying for
category two support for eligible services to a non-instructional
school building or library administrative building, the applicant shall
allocate the cost of providing services to one or more of the eligible
school or library buildings that benefit from those services being
provided.
(c) Funding year 2017 and beyond. Absent further action from the
Commission, each eligible library or school in a school district, which
did not receive funding for category two services in funding years 2015
and/or 2016, shall be eligible for support for category two 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 category two services other than basic maintenance
services. If a school or library receives category two 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. Support is not available for category two
services provided to or within non-instructional school buildings or
separate library administrative buildings unless those category two
services are essential for the effective transport of information to or
within one or more instructional buildings of a school or non-
administrative library buildings, or the Commission has found that the
use of those services meets the definition of educational purpose, as
defined in Sec. 54.500.
(d) Eligible services list process. The Administrator shall submit
by March 30 of each year a draft list of services eligible for support,
based on the Commission's rules for the following funding year. The
Wireline Competition Bureau will issue a Public Notice seeking comment
on the Administrator's proposed eligible services list. The final list
of services eligible for support will be released at least 60 days
prior to the
[[Page 49199]]
opening of the application filing window for the following funding
year.
0
6. Amend Sec. 54.503 by revising paragraphs (c), (d)(2)(i), and (d)(4)
and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.503 Competitive bidding requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Posting of FCC Form 470. (1) An eligible school, library, or
consortium that includes an eligible school or library seeking bids for
eligible services under this subpart shall submit a completed FCC Form
470 to the Administrator to initiate the competitive bidding process.
The FCC Form 470 and any request for proposal cited in the FCC Form 470
shall include, at a minimum, the following information, to the extent
applicable with respect to the services requested:
(i) A list of specified services for which the school, library, or
consortium requests bids; and
(ii) Sufficient information to enable bidders to reasonably
determine the needs of the applicant.
(2) The FCC Form 470 shall be signed by a person authorized to
request bids for eligible services for the eligible school, library, or
consortium, including such entities.
(i) A person authorized to request bids on behalf of the entities
listed on an FCC Form 470 shall certify under oath that:
(A) The schools meet the statutory definition of ``elementary
school'' or ``secondary school'' as defined in Sec. 54.500 of these
rules, do not operate as for-profit businesses, and do not have
endowments exceeding $50 million.
(B) The libraries or library consortia eligible for assistance from
a State library administrative agency under the Library Services and
Technology Act of 1996 do not operate as for-profit businesses and have
budgets that are completely separate from any school (including, but
not limited to, elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and
universities).
(C) Support under this support mechanism is conditional upon the
school(s) and library(ies) securing access to all of the resources,
including computers, training, software, maintenance, internal
connections, and electrical connections necessary to use the services
purchased effectively.
(ii) A person authorized to both request bids and order services on
behalf of the entities listed on an FCC Form 470 shall, in addition to
making the certifications listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section, certify under oath that:
(A) The services the school, library, or consortium purchases at
discounts will be used primarily for educational purposes and will not
be sold, resold, or transferred in consideration for money or any other
thing of value, except as allowed by Sec. 54.513.
(B) All bids submitted for eligible products and services will be
carefully considered, with price being the primary factor, and the bid
selected will be for the most cost-effective service offering
consistent with Sec. 54.511.
(3) The Administrator shall post each FCC Form 470 that it receives
from an eligible school, library, or consortium that includes an
eligible school or library on its Web site designated for this purpose.
(4) After posting on the Administrator's Web site an eligible
school, library, or consortium FCC Form 470, the Administrator shall
send confirmation of the posting to the entity requesting service. That
entity shall then wait at least four weeks from the date on which its
description of services is posted on the Administrator's Web site
before making commitments with the selected providers of services. The
confirmation from the Administrator shall include the date after which
the requestor may sign a contract with its chosen provider(s).
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The terms ``school, library, or consortium'' include all
individuals who are on the governing boards of such entities (such as
members of a school committee), and all employees, officers,
representatives, agents, consultants or independent contractors of such
entities involved on behalf of such school, library, or consortium with
the Schools and Libraries Program of the Universal Service Fund (E-rate
Program), including individuals who prepare, approve, sign or submit E-
rate applications, or other forms related to the E-rate Program, or who
prepare bids, communicate or work with E-rate service providers, E-rate
consultants, or with USAC, as well as any staff of such entities
responsible for monitoring compliance with the E-rate Program; and
* * * * *
(4) Any service provider may make charitable donations to an
eligible school, library, or consortium that includes an eligible
school or library in the support of its programs as long as such
contributions are not directly or indirectly related to E-rate
procurement activities or decisions and are not given by service
providers to circumvent competitive bidding and other E-rate program
rules, including those in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C) of this section,
requiring schools and libraries to pay their own non-discount share for
the services they are purchasing.
(e) Exemption to competitive bidding requirements. An applicant
that seeks support for commercially available high-speed Internet
access services for a pre-discount price of $3,600 or less per school
or library annually is exempt from the competitive bidding requirements
in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(1) Internet access, as defined in Sec. 54.5, is eligible for this
exemption only if the purchased service offers at least 100 Mbps
downstream and 10 Mbps upstream.
(2) The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, is delegated authority
to lower the annual cost of high-speed Internet access services or
raise the speed threshold of broadband services eligible for this
competitive bidding exemption, based on a determination of what rates
and speeds are commercially available prior to the start of the funding
year.
0
7. Revise Sec. 54.504 to read as follows:
Sec. 54.504 Requests for services.
(a) Filing of the FCC Form 471. An eligible school, library, or
consortium that includes an eligible school or library seeking to
receive discounts for eligible services under this subpart shall, upon
entering into a signed contract or other legally binding agreement for
eligible services, submit a completed FCC Form 471 to the
Administrator.
(1) The FCC Form 471 shall be signed by the person authorized to
order eligible services for the eligible school, library, or consortium
and shall include that person's certification under oath that:
(i) The schools meet the statutory definition of ``elementary
school'' or ``secondary school'' as defined in Sec. 54.500 of this
subpart, do not operate as for-profit businesses, and do not have
endowments exceeding $50 million.
(ii) The libraries or library consortia eligible for assistance
from a State library administrative agency under the Library Services
and Technology Act of 1996 do not operate as for-profit businesses and
whose budgets are completely separate from any school (including, but
not limited to, elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and
universities).
(iii) The entities listed on the FCC Form 471 application have
secured access to all of the resources, including computers, training,
software, maintenance, internal connections, and electrical
connections, necessary to
[[Page 49200]]
make effective use of the services purchased, as well as to pay the
discounted charges for eligible services from funds to which access has
been secured in the current funding year. The billed entity will pay
the non-discount portion of the cost of the goods and services to the
service provider(s).
(iv) The entities listed on the FCC Form 471 application have
complied with all applicable state and local laws regarding procurement
of services for which support is being sought.
(v) The services the school, library, or consortium purchases at
discounts will be used primarily for educational purposes and will not
be sold, resold, or transferred in consideration for money or any other
thing of value, except as allowed by Sec. 54.513.
(vi) The entities listed in the application have complied with all
program rules and acknowledge that failure to do so may result in
denial of discount funding and/or recovery of funding.
(vii) The applicant understands that the discount level used for
shared services is conditional, for future years, upon ensuring that
the most disadvantaged schools and libraries that are treated as
sharing in the service, receive an appropriate share of benefits from
those services.
(viii) The applicant recognizes that it may be audited pursuant to
its application, that it will retain for ten years any and all
worksheets and other records relied upon to fill out its application,
and that, if audited, it will make such records available to the
Administrator.
(ix) Except as exempted by Sec. 54.503(e), all bids submitted to a
school, library, or consortium seeking eligible services were carefully
considered and the most cost-effective bid was selected in accordance
with Sec. 54.503 of this subpart, with price being the primary factor
considered, and it is the most cost-effective means of meeting
educational needs and technology goals.
(2) All pricing and technology infrastructure information submitted
as part of an FCC Form 471 shall be treated as public and non-
confidential by the Administrator unless the applicant specifies a
statute, rule, or other restriction, such as a court order or an
existing contract limitation barring public release of the information.
(i) Contracts and other agreements executed after adoption of this
rule may not prohibit disclosure of pricing or technology
infrastructure information.
(ii) The exemption for existing contract limitations shall not
apply to voluntary extensions or renewals of existing contracts.
(b) Mixed eligibility requests. If 30 percent or more of a request
for discounts made in an FCC Form 471 is for ineligible services, the
request shall be denied in its entirety.
(c) Rate disputes. Schools, libraries, and consortia including
those entities, and service providers may have recourse to the
Commission, regarding interstate rates, and to state commissions,
regarding intrastate rates, if they reasonably believe that the lowest
corresponding price is unfairly high or low.
(1) Schools, libraries, and consortia including those entities may
request lower rates if the rate offered by the carrier does not
represent the lowest corresponding price.
(2) Service providers may request higher rates if they can show
that the lowest corresponding price is not compensatory, because the
relevant school, library, or consortium including those entities is not
similarly situated to and subscribing to a similar set of services to
the customer paying the lowest corresponding price.
(d) Service substitution. (1) The Administrator shall grant a
request by an applicant to substitute a service or product for one
identified on its FCC Form 471 where:
(i) The service or product has the same functionality;
(ii) The substitution does not violate any contract provisions or
state or local procurement laws;
(iii) The substitution does not result in an increase in the
percentage of ineligible services or functions; and
(iv) The applicant certifies that the requested change is within
the scope of the controlling FCC Form 470, including any associated
Requests for Proposal, for the original services.
(2) In the event that a service substitution results in a change in
the pre-discount price for the supported service, support shall be
based on the lower of either the pre-discount price of the service for
which support was originally requested or the pre-discount price of the
new, substituted service.
(3) For purposes of this rule, the two categories of eligible
services are not deemed to have the same functionality as one another.
(e) Mixed eligibility services. A request for discounts for a
product or service that includes both eligible and ineligible
components must allocate the cost of the contract to eligible and
ineligible components.
(1) Ineligible components. If a product or service contains
ineligible components, costs must be allocated to the extent that a
clear delineation can be made between the eligible and ineligible
components. The delineation must have a tangible basis, and the price
for the eligible portion must be the most cost-effective means of
receiving the eligible service.
(2) Ancillary ineligible components. If a product or service
contains ineligible components that are ancillary to the eligible
components, and the product or service is the most cost-effective means
of receiving the eligible component functionality, without regard to
the value of the ineligible component, costs need not be allocated
between the eligible and ineligible components. Discounts shall be
provided on the full cost of the product or service. An ineligible
component is ``ancillary'' if a price for the ineligible component
cannot be determined separately and independently from the price of the
eligible components, and the specific package remains the most cost-
effective means of receiving the eligible services, without regard to
the value of the ineligible functionality.
(3) The Administrator shall utilize the cost allocation
requirements of this paragraph in evaluating mixed eligibility requests
under paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(f) Filing of FCC Form 473. All service providers eligible to
provide telecommunications and other supported services under this
subpart shall submit annually a completed FCC Form 473 to the
Administrator. The FCC Form 473 shall be signed by an authorized person
and shall include that person's certification under oath that:
(1) The prices in any offer that this service provider makes
pursuant to the schools and libraries universal service support program
have been arrived at independently, without, for the purpose of
restricting competition, any consultation, communication, or agreement
with any other offeror or competitor relating to those prices, the
intention to submit an offer, or the methods or factors used to
calculate the prices offered;
(2) The prices in any offer that this service provider makes
pursuant to the schools and libraries universal service support program
will not be knowingly disclosed by this service provider, directly or
indirectly, to any other offeror or competitor before bid opening (in
the case of a sealed bid solicitation) or contract award (in the case
of a negotiated solicitation) unless otherwise required by law; and
(3) No attempt will be made by this service provider to induce any
other concern to submit or not to submit an
[[Page 49201]]
offer for the purpose of restricting competition.
(4) The service provider listed on the FCC Form 473 certifies that
the invoices that are submitted by this Service Provider to the Billed
Entity for reimbursement pursuant to Billed Entity Applicant
Reimbursement Forms (FCC Form 472) are accurate and represent payments
from the Billed Entity to the Service Provider for equipment and
services provided pursuant to E-rate program rules.
(5) The service provider listed on the FCC Form 473 certifies that
the bills or invoices issued by this service provider to the billed
entity are for equipment and services eligible for universal service
support by the Administrator, and exclude any charges previously
invoiced to the Administrator by the service provider.
0
8. Amend Sec. 54.505 by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3)(i),
(b)(3)(ii), (b)(4), (c) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.505 Discounts.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) For schools and school districts, the level of poverty shall be
based on the percentage of the student enrollment that is eligible for
a free or reduced price lunch under the national school lunch program
or a federally-approved alternative mechanism. School districts shall
divide the total number of students eligible for the National School
Lunch Program within the school district by the total number of
students within the school district to arrive at a percentage of
students eligible. This percentage rate shall then be applied to the
discount matrix to set a discount rate for the supported services
purchased by all schools within the school district. Independent
charter schools, private schools, and other eligible educational
facilities should calculate a single discount percentage rate based on
the total number of students under the control of the central
administrative agency.
(2) For libraries and library consortia, the level of poverty shall
be based on the percentage of the student enrollment that is eligible
for a free or reduced price lunch under the national school lunch
program or a federally-approved alternative mechanism in the public
school district in which they are located and should use that school
district's discount rate when applying as a library system or on behalf
of individual libraries within that system. Library systems that have
branches or outlets in more than one public school district should use
the address of the central outlet or main administrative office to
determine which school district the library system is in, and should
use that school district's discount rate when applying as a library
system or on behalf of individual libraries within that system. If the
library is not in a school district, then its level of poverty shall be
based on an average of the percentage of students eligible for the
national school lunch program in each of the school districts that
children living in the library's location attend.
(3) * * *
(i) The Administrator shall designate a school or library as
``urban'' if the school or library is located in an urbanized area as
determined by the most recent rural-urban classification by the Bureau
of the Census. The Administrator shall designate all other schools and
libraries as ``rural.''
(ii) Any school district or library system that has a majority of
schools or libraries in a rural area qualifies for the additional rural
discount.
(4) School districts, library systems, or other billed entities
shall calculate discounts on supported services described in Sec.
54.502(a) that are shared by two or more of their schools, libraries,
or consortia members by calculating an average discount based on the
applicable district-wide discounts of all member schools and libraries.
School districts, library systems, or other billed entities shall
ensure that, for each year in which an eligible school or library is
included for purposes of calculating the aggregate discount rate, that
eligible school or library shall receive a proportionate share of the
shared services for which support is sought. For schools, the discount
shall be a simple average of the applicable district-wide percentage
for all schools sharing a portion of the shared services. For
libraries, the average discount shall be a simple average of the
applicable discounts to which the libraries sharing a portion of the
shared services are entitled.
(c) Matrices. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section,
the Administrator shall use the following matrices to set discount
rates to be applied to eligible category one and category two services
purchased by eligible schools, school districts, libraries, or
consortia based on the institution's level of poverty and location in
an ``urban'' or ``rural'' area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category one schools and Category two schools and
libraries discount matrix libraries discount matrix
---------------------------------------------------------------
% of students eligible for National School Discount level Discount level
Lunch Program ---------------------------------------------------------------
Urban Rural Urban Rural
discount discount discount discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 1............................................. 20 25 20 25
1-19............................................ 40 50 40 50
20-34........................................... 50 60 50 60
35-49........................................... 60 70 60 70
50-74........................................... 80 80 80 80
75-100.......................................... 90 90 85 85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Voice Services. Discounts for category one voice services shall
be reduced by 20 percentage points off applicant discount percentage
rates for each funding year starting in funding year 2015, and reduced
by an additional 20 percentage points off applicant discount percentage
rates each subsequent funding year.
* * * * *
0
9. Revise Sec. 54.507 to read as follows:
Sec. 54.507 Cap.
(a) Amount of the annual cap. The aggregate annual cap on federal
universal service support for schools and libraries shall be $2.25
billion per funding year, of which $1 billion per funding year will be
available for the category two services, as described in Sec.
54.502(a)(2), unless demand for category one services is higher than
available funding.
(1) Inflation increase. In funding year 2010 and subsequent funding
years, the
[[Page 49202]]
$2.25 billion funding cap on federal universal service support for
schools and libraries shall be automatically increased annually to take
into account increases in the rate of inflation as calculated in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) Increase calculation. To measure increases in the rate of
inflation for the purposes of this paragraph (a), the Commission shall
use the Gross Domestic Product Chain-type Price Index (GDP-CPI). To
compute the annual increase as required by this paragraph (a), the
percentage increase in the GDP-CPI from the previous year will be used.
For instance, the annual increase in the GDP-CPI from 2008 to 2009
would be used for the 2010 funding year. The increase shall be rounded
to the nearest 0.1 percent by rounding 0.05 percent and above to the
next higher 0.1 percent and otherwise rounding to the next lower 0.1
percent. This percentage increase shall be added to the amount of the
annual funding cap from the previous funding year. If the yearly
average GDP-CPI decreases or stays the same, the annual funding cap
shall remain the same as the previous year.
(3) Public notice. When the calculation of the yearly average GDP-
CPI is determined, the Wireline Competition Bureau shall publish a
public notice in the Federal Register within 60 days announcing any
increase of the annual funding cap based on the rate of inflation.
(4) Filing window requests. At the close of the filing window, if
requests for category one services are greater than the available
funding, the Administrator shall shift category two funds to provide
support for category one services. If available funds are sufficient to
meet demand for category one services, the Administrator, at the
direction of the Wireline Competition Bureau, shall direct the
remaining additional funds to provide support for category two
requests.
(5) Amount of unused funds. All funds collected that are unused
shall be carried forward into subsequent funding years for use in the
schools and libraries support mechanism in accordance with the public
interest and notwithstanding the annual cap. The Chief, Wireline
Competition Bureau, is delegated authority to determine the proportion
of unused funds, if any, needed to meet category one demand, and to
direct the Administrator to use any remaining funds to provide support
for category two requests. The Administrator shall report to the
Commission, on a quarterly basis, funding that is unused from prior
years of the schools and libraries support mechanism.
(6) Application of unused funds. On an annual basis, in the second
quarter of each calendar year, all funds that are collected and that
are unused from prior years shall be available for use in the next full
funding year of the schools and libraries mechanism in accordance with
the public interest and notwithstanding the annual cap as described in
this paragraph (a).
(b) Funding year. A funding year for purposes of the schools and
libraries cap shall be the period July 1 through June 30.
(c) Requests. Funds shall be available to fund discounts for
eligible schools and libraries and consortia of such eligible entities
on a first-come-first-served basis, with requests accepted beginning on
the first of July prior to each funding year. The Administrator shall
maintain on the Administrator's Web site a running tally of the funds
already committed for the existing funding year. The Administrator
shall implement an initial filing period that treats all schools and
libraries filing within that period as if their applications were
simultaneously received. The initial filing period shall begin on the
date that the Administrator begins to receive applications for support,
and shall conclude on a date to be determined by the Administrator. The
Administrator may implement such additional filing periods as it deems
necessary.
(d) Annual filing requirement. Schools and libraries, and consortia
of such eligible entities shall file new funding requests for each
funding year no sooner than the July 1 prior to the start of that
funding year. Schools, libraries, and eligible consortia must use
recurring services for which discounts have been committed by the
Administrator within the funding year for which the discounts were
sought. Implementation of non-recurring services may begin on April 1
prior to the July 1 start of the funding year. The deadline for
implementation of non-recurring services will be September 30 following
the close of the funding year. An applicant may request and receive
from the Administrator an extension of the implementation deadline for
non-recurring services if it satisfies one of the following criteria:
(1) The applicant's funding commitment decision letter is issued by
the Administrator on or after March 1 of the funding year for which
discounts are authorized;
(2) The applicant receives a service provider change authorization
or service substitution authorization from the Administrator on or
after March 1 of the funding year for which discounts are authorized;
(3) The applicant's service provider is unable to complete
implementation for reasons beyond the service provider's control; or
(4) The applicant's service provider is unwilling to complete
installation because funding disbursements are delayed while the
Administrator investigates their application for program compliance.
(e) Long term contracts. If schools and libraries enter into long
term contracts for eligible services, the Administrator shall only
commit funds to cover the pro rata portion of such a long term contract
scheduled to be delivered during the funding year for which universal
service support is sought.
(f) Rules of distribution. When the filing period described in
paragraph (c) of this section closes, the Administrator shall calculate
the total demand for both category one and category two support
submitted by applicants during the filing period. If total demand for
the funding year exceeds the total support available for category one
or both categories, the Administrator shall take the following steps:
(1) Category one. The Administrator shall first calculate the
demand for category one services for all discount levels. The
Administrator shall allocate the category one funds to these requests
for support, beginning with the most economically disadvantaged schools
and libraries, as determined by the schools and libraries discount
matrix in Sec. 54.505(c). Schools and libraries eligible for a 90
percent discount shall receive first priority for the category one
funds. The Administrator shall next allocate funds toward the requests
submitted by schools and libraries eligible for an 80 percent discount,
then for a 70 percent discount, and shall continue committing funds for
category one services in the same manner to the applicants at each
descending discount level until there are no funds remaining.
(2) Category two. The Administrator shall next calculate the demand
for category two services for all discount categories as determined by
the schools and libraries discount matrix in Sec. 54.505(c). If that
demand exceeds the category two budget for that funding year, the
Administrator shall allocate the category two funds beginning with the
most economically disadvantaged schools and libraries, as determined by
the schools and libraries discount matrix in Sec. 54.505(c). The
Administrator shall allocate funds toward the category two requests
submitted by schools and libraries eligible for an 85 percent
[[Page 49203]]
discount first, then for a 80 percent discount, and shall continue
committing funds in the same manner to the applicants at each
descending discount level until there are no category two funds
remaining.
(3) To the extent that there are single discount percentage levels
associated with ``shared services'' under Sec. 54.505(b)(4), the
Administrator shall allocate funds to the applicants at each descending
discount level (e.g., 90 percent, 89 percent, then 88 percent) until
there are no funds remaining.
(4) For both paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, if the
remaining funds are not sufficient to support all of the funding
requests within a particular discount level, the Administrator shall
allocate funds at that discount level using the percentage of students
eligible for the National School Lunch Program. Thus, if there is not
enough support to fund all requests at the 40 percent discount level,
the Administrator shall allocate funds beginning with those applicants
with the highest percentage of NSLP eligibility for that discount level
by funding those applicants with 19 percent NSLP eligibility, then 18
percent NSLP eligibility, and shall continue committing funds in the
same manner to applicants at each descending percentage of NSLP until
there are no funds remaining.
Sec. 54.508 [Removed and Reserved]
0
10. Remove and reserve Sec. 54.508.
0
11. Revise Sec. 54.511 to read as follows:
Sec. 54.511 Ordering services.
(a) Selecting a provider of eligible services. Except as exempted
in Sec. 54.503(e), in selecting a provider of eligible services,
schools, libraries, library consortia, and consortia including any of
those entities shall carefully consider all bids submitted and must
select the most cost-effective service offering. In determining which
service offering is the most cost-effective, entities may consider
relevant factors other than the pre-discount prices submitted by
providers, but price should be the primary factor considered.
(b) Lowest corresponding price. Providers of eligible services
shall not submit bids for or charge schools, school districts,
libraries, library consortia, or consortia including any of these
entities a price above the lowest corresponding price for supported
services, unless the Commission, with respect to interstate services or
the state commission with respect to intrastate services, finds that
the lowest corresponding price is not compensatory. Promotional rates
offered by a service provider for a period of more than 90 days must be
included among the comparable rates upon which the lowest corresponding
price is determined.
0
12. Revise Sec. 54.514 to read as follows:
Sec. 54.514 Payment for discounted services.
(a) Invoice filing deadline. Invoices must be submitted to the
Administrator:
(1) 120 days after the last day to receive service, or
(2) 120 days after the date of the FCC Form 486 Notification
Letter, whichever is later.
(b) Invoice deadline extension. In advance of the deadline
calculated pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, service providers
or billed entities may request a one-time extension of the invoicing
deadline. The Administrator shall grant a 120 day extension of the
invoice filing deadline, if it is timely requested.
(c) Choice of payment method. Service providers providing
discounted services under this subpart in any funding year shall, prior
to the submission of the FCC Form 471, permit the billed entity to
choose the method of payment for the discounted services from those
methods approved by the Administrator, including by making a full,
undiscounted payment and receiving subsequent reimbursement of the
discount amount from the Administrator.
0
13. Revise Sec. 54.516 to read as follows:
Sec. 54.516 Auditing and inspections.
(a) Recordkeeping requirements--(1) Schools, libraries, and
consortia. Schools, libraries, and any consortium that includes schools
or libraries shall retain all documents related to the application for,
receipt, and delivery of supported services for at least 10 years after
the latter of the last day of the applicable funding year or the
service delivery deadline for the funding request. Any other document
that demonstrates compliance with the statutory or regulatory
requirements for the schools and libraries mechanism shall be retained
as well. Schools, libraries, and consortia shall maintain asset and
inventory records of equipment purchased as components of supported
category two services sufficient to verify the actual location of such
equipment for a period of 10 years after purchase.
(2) Service providers. Service providers shall retain documents
related to the delivery of supported services for at least 10 years
after the latter of the last day of the applicable funding year or the
service delivery deadline for the funding request. Any other document
that demonstrates compliance with the statutory or regulatory
requirements for the schools and libraries mechanism shall be retained
as well.
(b) Production of records. Schools, libraries, consortia, and
service providers shall produce such records at the request of any
representative (including any auditor) appointed by a state education
department, the Administrator, the FCC, or any local, state or federal
agency with jurisdiction over the entity.
(c) Audits. Schools, libraries, consortia, and service providers
shall be subject to audits and other investigations to evaluate their
compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements for the
schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, including
those requirements pertaining to what services and products are
purchased, what services and products are delivered, and how services
and products are being used. Schools, libraries, and consortia
receiving discounted services must provide consent before a service
provider releases confidential information to the auditor, reviewer, or
other representative.
(d) Inspections. Schools, libraries, consortia and service
providers shall permit any representative (including any auditor)
appointed by a state education department, the Administrator, the
Commission or any local, state or federal agency with jurisdiction over
the entity to enter their premises to conduct E-rate compliance
inspections.
Subpart G--Universal Service Support for Health Care Providers
0
14. Amend Sec. 54.642 by revising paragraph (h)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.642 Competitive bidding requirements and exemptions.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(5) Schools and libraries program master contracts. Subject to the
provisions in Sec. Sec. 54.500, 54.501(c)(1), and 54.503, an eligible
health care provider in a consortium with participants in the schools
and libraries universal service support program and a party to the
consortium's existing contract is exempt from the Healthcare Connect
Fund competitive bidding requirements if the contract was approved in
the schools and libraries universal service support program as a master
contract. The health care provider must comply with all Healthcare
Connect Fund rules and procedures except for those applicable to
competitive bidding.
[[Page 49204]]
Subpart H--Administration
Sec. 54.705 [Amended]
0
15. Amend Sec. 54.705 by removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1)(vi)
through (viii).
Subpart I--Review of Decisions Issued by the Administrator
0
16. Revise Sec. 54.719 to read as follows:
Sec. 54.719 Parties permitted to seek review of Administrator
decision.
(a) Any party aggrieved by an action taken by the Administrator, as
defined in Sec. 54.701, Sec. 54.703, or Sec. 54.705, must first seek
review from the Administrator.
(b) Any party aggrieved by an action taken by the Administrator,
after seeking review from the Administrator, may then seek review from
the Federal Communications Commission, as set forth in Sec. 54.722.
(c) Parties seeking waivers of the Commission's rules shall seek
relief directly from the Commission.
0
17. Revise Sec. 54.720 to read as follows:
Sec. 54.720 Filing deadlines.
(a) An affected party requesting review of an Administrator
decision by the Commission pursuant to Sec. 54.719, shall file such a
request within sixty (60) days from the date the Administrator issues a
decision.
(b) In all cases of requests for review filed under Sec. 54.719(a)
through (c) the request for review shall be deemed filed on the
postmark date. If the postmark date cannot be determined, the applicant
must file a sworn affidavit stating the date that the request for
review was mailed.
(c) Parties shall adhere to the time periods for filing oppositions
and replies set forth in 47 CFR 1.45.
[FR Doc. 2014-18937 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P