Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Petitions for Emergency Relief To Allow the Use of E-Rate Funds To Support Remote Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 9309-9312 [2021-02997]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules
following method: Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions on the website
for submitting comments.
Instructions. Include the HHS Docket
No. HRSA–2021–0001 in your
comments. All comments received will
be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov. Please do not
include any personally identifiable or
confidential business information you
do not want publicly disclosed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Please visit the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program’s website,
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine
compensation/, or contact Tamara
Overby, Acting Director, Division of
Injury Compensation Programs,
Healthcare Systems Bureau, HRSA,
Room 08N146B, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857; by email at
vaccinecompensation@hrsa.gov; or by
telephone at (855) 266–2427.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HHS
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking on July 20, 2020 (85 FR
43794), and final rule on January 21,
2021 (86 FR 6249). That final rule
amended the provisions of 42 CFR 100.3
by removing Shoulder Injury Related to
Vaccine Administration, vasovagal
syncope, and Item XVII from the
Vaccine Injury Table. The January 20,
2021, memorandum from the Assistant
to the President and Chief of Staff,
entitled ‘‘Regulatory Freeze Pending
Review,’’ instructed federal agencies to
consider delaying the effective date of
rules published in the Federal Register,
but which have not yet taken effect, for
a period of 60 days so that the new
Administration may review recently
published rules for ‘‘any questions of
fact, law, and policy the rule may raise.’’
The memorandum notes certain
exceptions that do not apply here. On
January 20, 2021, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) also
published OMB Memorandum M–21–
14, Implementation of Memorandum
Concerning Regulatory Freeze Pending
Review, which provides guidance
regarding the Regulatory Freeze
Memorandum. See OMB M–21–14,
Implementation of Memorandum
Concerning Regulatory Freeze Pending
Review, https://www.whitehouse.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2021/01/M-21-14Regulatory-Review.pdf. OMB M–21–14
explains that pursuant to the Regulatory
Freeze Memorandum, agencies ‘‘should
consider postponing the effective dates
for 60 days and reopening the
rulemaking process’’ for ‘‘rules that have
not yet taken effect and about which
questions involving law, fact, or policy
have been raised.’’ Id. In accordance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Feb 11, 2021
Jkt 253001
with the Regulatory Freeze
Memorandum and OMB M–21–14, HHS
proposes to delay the effective date of
the final rule revising the Vaccine Injury
Table to April 23, 2021, which would be
60 days beyond its original effective
date. HHS needs to extend the effective
date of the underlying rule by 60 days
to determine whether its promulgation
raises any legal issues, including but not
limited to (1) whether the Advisory
Commission on Childhood Vaccines
was properly notified of the proposed
rule pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 300aa–14(c),
and (2) whether the public was properly
notified of the entire revised regulation,
42 CFR 100.3(b)–(e) (including the
qualifications and aids to interpretation
and the coverage provisions), given that
both the proposed and final rules
published in the Federal Register
included only the revised Vaccine
Injury Table itself, but not the entire
revised regulation. HHS believes that
the proposed delay is reasonable, would
allow HHS time to receive public
comments, and would not be disruptive
since the underlying rule has not yet
taken effect and the agency has not yet
implemented the rule.
HHS seeks comment on the proposed
delay, including the proposed delay’s
impact on any legal, factual, or policy
issues raised by the underlying rule and
whether further review of those issues
warrants such a delay. All other
comments on the underlying rule will
be considered to be outside the scope of
this rulemaking. HHS therefore seeks
comment by February 16, 2021 on its
proposal to extend the effective date by
60 days to April 23, 2021.
Norris Cochran,
Acting Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2021–03069 Filed 2–11–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165–15–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 21–31; DA 21–98; FRS
17466]
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks
Comment on Petitions for Emergency
Relief To Allow the Use of E-Rate
Funds To Support Remote Learning
During the COVID–19 Pandemic
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Solicitation of comments.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Wireline Competition Bureau (the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9309
Bureau) seeks comment on petitions for
emergency relief from parties asking the
Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) to permit the use of ERate program funds to support remote
learning during this unprecedented
public health emergency.
DATES: Comments are due February 16,
2021 and Reply Comments are due
February 23, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments on or before February 16,
2021, and reply comments on or before
February 23, 2021. All filings should
refer to WC Docket No. 21–31.
Comments may be filed by paper or by
using the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See
Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
D Electronic Filers: Comments and
replies may be filed electronically using
the internet by accessing ECFS: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
D Filings can be sent by commercial
overnight courier or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.
Filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
D Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L St NE, Washington,
DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until
further notice, the Commission no
longer accepts any hand or messenger
delivered filings. This is a temporary
measure taken to help protect the health
and safety of individuals, and to
mitigate the transmission of COVID–19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gabriela Gross, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or by email at
Gabriela.Gross@fcc.gov. We ask that
requests for accommodations be made
as soon as possible in order to allow the
agency to satisfy such requests
whenever possible. Send an email to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
9310
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules
and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202) 418–0530
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Bureau’s Public Notice
in WC Docket No. 21–31; DA 21–98,
released on February 1, 2021. Due to the
COVID–19 pandemic, the Commission’s
headquarters will be closed to the
general public until further notice. See
FCC Announces Closure of FCC
Headquarters Open Window and
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public
Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020).
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. The full
text of this document is available at the
following internet address: https://
www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seekscomment-using-e-rate-funding-supportremote-learning.
Proceedings in this document shall be
treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceeding in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file
a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and summarize
all data presented and arguments made
during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in
part of the presentation of data or
arguments already reflected in the
presenter’s written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in
his or her prior comments, memoranda,
or other filings (specifying the relevant
page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in
lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or
given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written
ex parte presentations and must be filed
consistent with rule § 1.1206(b). In
proceedings governed by rule § 1.49(f)
or for which the Commission has made
available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Feb 11, 2021
Jkt 253001
in these proceedings should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
The COVID–19 pandemic has
underscored the critical need for
broadband connections for millions of
Americans, including students and
teachers across the country. To mitigate
the spread of the disease, schools and
libraries have shut their doors and
transitioned to remote learning and
virtual services, either in whole or in
part, leaving those students who found
themselves caught in the ‘‘Homework
Gap’’ before the pandemic facing
extraordinary hardship and at risk of
being unable to participate in any
virtual studies.
As a result of the impact of the
COVID–19 pandemic on schools and
libraries, the Commission has received
at least 11 petitions for emergency relief
from parties asking the FCC to permit
the use of E-Rate program funds to
support remote learning during this
unprecedented public health emergency
(collectively, Petitions). By this
document, the Bureau seeks comment
on those Petitions. In so doing, the
Bureau highlights three of the petitions,
that together raise most of the issues
covered by other Petitioners: A petition
filed by a coalition of E-Rate
stakeholders led by the Schools, Health
& Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition,
a petition for waiver filed on behalf of
the State of Colorado and one filed by
the State of Nevada, the Nevada State
Board of Education, and the Nevada
Department of Education.
As the pandemic continues to force
schools and libraries across the country
to remain closed and rely on remote
learning and virtual services, either in
whole or in part, the need for broadband
connections—particularly for those
students, teachers, staff, and patrons
that lack an adequate connection at
home—is more critical than ever.
Eligible schools and libraries explain
that they are hampered in their ability
to address the connectivity needs
brought on, and in many cases
exacerbated, by COVID–19 because of
the restrictions on off-campus use of ERate-funded services and facilities. Last
spring, as the COVID–19 pandemic
forced schools and libraries to grapple
with the challenges of transitioning to
remote learning, the FCC began to
receive requests for emergency relief
aimed at ensuring that all students have
sufficient connectivity at home. Below,
the Bureau summarizes three petitions,
which reflect the experience of schools
and libraries dealing with many months
of remote learning.
Most recently, a coalition of
stakeholders led by SHLB filed a
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
petition for declaratory ruling and
waivers asking the FCC to allow E-Ratefunded services and equipment to be
used off-campus to enable remote
learning for the duration of the
pandemic. SHLB urges the Bureau, on
delegated authority, to declare that
during the pandemic, remote learning
meets the standard of serving an
‘‘educational purpose’’ and thus, any
off-campus use does not need to be
removed from funding requests. SHLB
also proposes opening a separate
‘‘Remote Learning Application Filing
Window’’ to allow applicants to file
new or revised requests for additional ERate funds for off-campus services and
equipment that facilitate remote
learning during funding years 2020 and
2021. SHLB recommends that the FCC
provide unused E-Rate funds to support
these Remote Learning applications and
use the existing E-Rate discount
methodologies to prioritize funding.
SHLB further requests a waiver of ERate program rules, including the
competitive bidding, application, and
eligible services rules to facilitate the
Remote Learning Application Filing
Window.
Last fall, Colorado filed a petition
requesting waiver of the prohibition on
the use of E-Rate funds and E-Ratefunded facilities and services to allow
schools to extend their broadband
internet connectivity to students who
lack adequate internet connectivity at
home, and the requirement to costallocate such off-campus use. Colorado
explains that temporarily waiving the
restrictions on off-campus use of E-Ratesupported equipment and services is
consistent with the Communications
Act, which requires the Commission to
provide support for services that ‘‘are
essential to education, public health, or
public safety’’ and ‘‘are consistent with
the public interest, convenience, and
necessity.’’ Colorado further explains
that because the school classroom has
shifted from a shared physical space to
a virtual space during the pandemic, the
Commission can and should waive the
E-Rate program requirements
accordingly to provide students with the
broadband internet connectivity needed
to fully engage in remote learning.
Colorado contends that the FCC can rely
on the same statutory authority to allow
schools to extend connectivity to
students’ homes that the Commission
relied on to establish the Connected
Care Pilot Program, which funds the
purchase of internet access service for
participating telehealth patients’ remote
use.
Last summer, Nevada filed a request
for waiver of the restrictions on the use
of E-Rate-funded broadband
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules
connectivity beyond school property.
Nevada proposes to install fixed
wireless hotspots on the roofs of school
buildings to extend their E-Rate-funded
broadband internet connectivity to a
two-to-three-mile radius around each
school site for students’ and staff’s use.
Nevada specifies that access to the
schools’ networks would be restricted to
students and staff through specific
credentials or by their registered
devices. According to Nevada, by
leveraging existing fiber connections,
fixed wireless hotspots could ‘‘bridge
60% of the current connectivity gaps
that exist due to geographic and
economic limitations across the State.’’
The Bureau seeks comment on these
and the other issues raised by the three
above-referenced petitions as well as the
other petitions. To focus our
consideration of the requests, the
Bureau offers some more specific areas
of inquiry.
The Bureau seeks comment on the
specific equipment and services that ERate should support to fund off-campus
access to broadband services for
students, staff and patrons who lack
adequate home internet access. For
example, the SHLB Petition requests ERate support for wired or wireless
network equipment and services
necessary for remote learning,
including, but not limited to, wireless
hotspot devices and fixed or mobile
wireless towers. Do other commenters
agree that these services and equipment
are needed to support remote learning?
Are there other or different services or
equipment that are needed to support
remote learning? For example, should
modems, routers, devices that combine
a modem and router, or connected
devices be eligible? With respect to
broadband connectivity, what level of
service is required to support remote
learning? The Bureau also seeks
comment on the cost of the services and
equipment needed to support remote
learning. The Bureau encourages
schools, libraries and other stakeholders
that have recent experience with these
services and costs to provide specific
information about the services they are
purchasing, the costs they are paying
and what they have done to ensure the
services are sufficient and the costs are
reasonable.
E-Rate program rules require
applicants to select the most costeffective service offering, consistent
with section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Act.
Competitive bidding is a cornerstone of
the E-Rate program, ensuring that
applicants are informed of their options
and service providers have sufficient
information to provide services, leading
to cost-effective pricing, and protecting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Feb 11, 2021
Jkt 253001
limited E-Rate funds from waste, fraud,
and abuse. At the same time, due to the
urgency with which schools have
needed to adapt to remote learning, both
the Colorado and SHLB Petitions seek
waivers of competitive bidding rules. In
the absence of such a safeguard, how
can the Commission ensure that
applicants are making cost-effective
purchases? Is payment of the nondiscount share a sufficient incentive to
prevent wasteful spending? Would the
same be true if adjustments are made to
the non-discount share? What steps
have schools and libraries that are
currently providing off-premises
broadband services to students, staff and
patrons taken to ensure that they are
making cost effective purchases? What
other limitations or guardrails exist or
are necessary to prevent waste, fraud, or
abuse of E-Rate program funds? Should,
for example, the Commission subject
recipients of E-rate funds for remote
learning equipment and services to
audits similar to those conducted in the
regular E-Rate program? Should the
Commission apply existing E-Rate
program record keeping requirements to
any funds it provides to enable remote
learning? What other measures should
the FCC use to safeguard these funds
and ensure they are used to target
students and teachers who lack
sufficient internet access at home?
Publicly available information
strongly suggests that substantially more
funding might be needed than is
potentially available through the E-Rate
program. In the event that demand
exceeds available funding, how should
the off-campus requests be prioritized?
The Bureau seeks comment on the best
approach to quickly and equitably make
funding available to those with the most
need.
How can the Commission ensure that
available funds are efficiently targeted
and focused on the needs of rural
students; Native American, African
American and LatinX students; students
with disabilities; and other populations
of students that are disproportionally
affected by the Homework Gap or are
more expensive or difficult to reach?
Does the E-Rate program’s existing
discount rate system adequately target
students that fall into the Homework
Gap, especially low-income students
and those in rural or remote areas? How
can the Commission prioritize limited
E-Rate support to those students, staff,
or patrons that still do not have
adequate home internet access to fully
engage in remote learning?
Colorado requests that the
Commission waive its restrictions on
off-campus use of E-Rate-supported
services during the COVID–19
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9311
pandemic and asserts that remote
learning will remain a significant, if not
exclusive, mode of instruction through
at least the 2020–21 school year. SHLB
requests that the Commission waive its
restrictions on off-campus use for
funding years 2020 and 2021, due to the
uncertainties of whether students will
be able to return to the classrooms
during the upcoming 2021–2022 school
year. If relief is granted to the
Petitioners, should the relief provided
apply on a prospective basis in order to
target the students and staff that remain
without adequate home internet access?
Or, recognizing that COVID–19 has
forced schools and libraries across the
country to dramatically shift the way
they operate and provide education and
library services since the first closures
began in March 2020, should the relief
provided apply retroactively to services
and equipment purchased during
funding year 2020? If funding is allowed
for prior purchases, how can the
Commission ensure that limited E-Rate
funds are not used to pay for services
and equipment that were reimbursed
with other federal funding, including
funding made available through the
CARES Act or through the Emergency
Broadband Benefits Program?
Commenters should explain how the
funding sought through the E-Rate
program to address insufficient internet
access at home would not be duplicative
of funding available through the
Emergency Broadband Benefits
Program. What are the guardrails or
other measures that should be used to
avoid duplication of limited funds and
ensure the funds are targeted to students
and teachers lacking adequate internet
access at home? Should the Commission
prioritize prospective relief over
reimbursements for prior purchases?
What should be the timeframe for this
relief? Should it start when the COVID–
19 pandemic was declared a national
emergency? Should it end when the
national emergency is rescinded, or
should another marker be used to define
this period?
According to SHLB and Colorado,
allowing E-Rate-funded off-campus
support for students with inadequate
internet access at home during the
pandemic is consistent with the
Commission’s authority to determine
which services to support under the
Communications Act. SHLB explains
that the Commission can clarify that offcampus use of equipment to support
remote learning during the pandemic
constitutes an educational purpose
under section 254(h)(1)(B). Colorado
asserts that the inaccessibility of
physical classrooms during the
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
9312
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules
pandemic enables the Commission to
deem at-home connectivity eligible for
these purposes under section 254(c)(1),
which requires the Commission to take
into consideration, when determining
eligible services, which services ‘‘are
essential to education, public health, or
public safety’’ and ‘‘are consistent with
the public interest, convenience, and
necessity.’’ SHLB offers a variety of
arguments for rejecting suggestions that
the reference to ‘‘classrooms’’ in section
254(b)(6) and 254(h)(2)(A) which
provide that ‘‘[t]he Commission shall
establish competitively neutral rules
. . . to enhance, to the extent
technically feasible and economically
reasonable, access to advanced
telecommunications and information
services for all public and nonprofit
elementary and secondary school
classrooms . . . .’’ limits the
Commission’s ability to provide E-Rate
supported broadband for remote
learning. SHLB points out that the
Commission already provides E-rate
support for some off-campus services
and echoes Colorado’s argument that
during the pandemic students’ and
teachers’ homes have become virtual
classrooms. Both SHLB and Colorado
argue that the Commission relied on its
authority under section 254(h)(2)(A) of
the Act to allow health care providers to
purchase internet access services for
participating patients’ use in their
homes or mobile locations during the
pandemic in the Connected Care Pilot
Program and can take a similar action in
the E-Rate program. They also both
point out that the Commission has the
statutory authority to designate
additional E-Rate supported services.
The Bureau invites other stakeholders to
comment on the Commission’s legal
authority to use E-Rate funding to help
address the remote learning challenges
created by the COVID–19 Pandemic.
Federal Communications Commission.
Cheryl Callahan,
Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2021–02997 Filed 2–10–21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Feb 11, 2021
Jkt 253001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 300
[Docket No. 210205–0014]
RIN 0648–BK27
Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch
Sharing Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes to approve
changes to the Pacific Halibut Catch
Sharing Plan for the International
Pacific Halibut Commission’s regulatory
Area 2A off of Washington, Oregon, and
California. In addition, NMFS proposes
to implement management measures
governing the 2021 recreational fisheries
that are not implemented through the
International Pacific Halibut
Commission. These measures include
the recreational fishery seasons,
allocations, and management measures
for Area 2A. These actions are intended
to conserve Pacific halibut and provide
angler opportunity where available.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
must be received on or before March 15,
2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by NOAA–NMFS–2020–0157,
by either of the following methods:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20200157, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Barry Thom, c/o Kathryn Blair, West
Coast Region, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd
Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
Instructions: NMFS may not consider
comments if they are sent by any other
method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the
comment period ends. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and NMFS will post them for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender is
publicly accessible. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Docket: This rule is accessible via the
internet at the Office of the Federal
Register website at https://
www.federalregister.gov. Background
information and documents are
available at the NMFS West Coast
Region website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/
sustainable-fisheries/fisheriesmanagement-west-coast and at the
Council’s website at https://
www.pcouncil.org. Other comments
received may be accessed through
Regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathryn Blair, phone: 503–231–6858,
fax: 503–231–6893, or email:
kathryn.blair@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Northern Pacific Halibut Act of
1982 (Halibut Act) gives the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) responsibility for
implementing the provisions of the
Halibut Convention between the United
States and Canada. 16 U.S.C. 773–773k.
The Halibut Act requires that the
Secretary adopt regulations to carry out
the purposes and objectives of the
Halibut Convention and Halibut Act. 16
U.S.C. 773(c). The Halibut Act also
authorizes the regional fishery
management councils having authority
for a particular geographic area to
develop regulations in addition to, but
not in conflict with, regulations issued
by the International Pacific Halibut
Commission (IPHC) to govern the
Pacific halibut catch in U.S. Convention
waters (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)).
Since 1988, the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) has
developed, and NMFS has approved,
annual Catch Sharing Plans that allocate
the IPHC regulatory Area 2A Pacific
halibut catch limit between treaty
Indian and non-Indian harvesters, and
among non-Indian commercial and
recreational (sport) fisheries. In 1995,
the Council recommended, and NMFS
approved, a long-term Area 2A Catch
Sharing Plan (60 FR 14651; March 20,
1995). NMFS has been approving
adjustments to the Area 2A Catch
Sharing Plan based on Council
recommendations each year to address
the changing needs of these fisheries.
While the full Catch Sharing Plan is not
published in the Federal Register, it is
made available on the Council and
NMFS websites.
At its annual meeting January 25–29,
2021, the IPHC recommended an Area
2A catch limit. This catch limit is
derived from the total constant
exploitation yield (TCEY), which
includes commercial discards and
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 28 (Friday, February 12, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9309-9312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02997]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 21-31; DA 21-98; FRS 17466]
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Petitions for
Emergency Relief To Allow the Use of E-Rate Funds To Support Remote
Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Solicitation of comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (the Bureau)
seeks comment on petitions for emergency relief from parties asking the
Federal Communications Commission (Commission) to permit the use of E-
Rate program funds to support remote learning during this unprecedented
public health emergency.
DATES: Comments are due February 16, 2021 and Reply Comments are due
February 23, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or
before February 16, 2021, and reply comments on or before February 23,
2021. All filings should refer to WC Docket No. 21-31. Comments may be
filed by paper or by using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments and replies may be filed
electronically using the internet by accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
[ssquf] Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. Filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 45 L St NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission
no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a
temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of
individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabriela Gross, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or by email at [email protected]. We ask
that requests for accommodations be made as soon as possible in order
to allow the agency to satisfy such requests whenever possible. Send an
email to [email protected] or call the Consumer
[[Page 9310]]
and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's Public
Notice in WC Docket No. 21-31; DA 21-98, released on February 1, 2021.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission's headquarters will be
closed to the general public until further notice. See FCC Announces
Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery
Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy. The full text of this document is available at the following
internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-comment-using-e-rate-funding-support-remote-learning.
Proceedings in this document shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must list all persons attending or otherwise participating
in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and
summarize all data presented and arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's
written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant
page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown
or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be
written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule
Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for
which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in these proceedings should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the critical need for
broadband connections for millions of Americans, including students and
teachers across the country. To mitigate the spread of the disease,
schools and libraries have shut their doors and transitioned to remote
learning and virtual services, either in whole or in part, leaving
those students who found themselves caught in the ``Homework Gap''
before the pandemic facing extraordinary hardship and at risk of being
unable to participate in any virtual studies.
As a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on schools and
libraries, the Commission has received at least 11 petitions for
emergency relief from parties asking the FCC to permit the use of E-
Rate program funds to support remote learning during this unprecedented
public health emergency (collectively, Petitions). By this document,
the Bureau seeks comment on those Petitions. In so doing, the Bureau
highlights three of the petitions, that together raise most of the
issues covered by other Petitioners: A petition filed by a coalition of
E-Rate stakeholders led by the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband
(SHLB) Coalition, a petition for waiver filed on behalf of the State of
Colorado and one filed by the State of Nevada, the Nevada State Board
of Education, and the Nevada Department of Education.
As the pandemic continues to force schools and libraries across the
country to remain closed and rely on remote learning and virtual
services, either in whole or in part, the need for broadband
connections--particularly for those students, teachers, staff, and
patrons that lack an adequate connection at home--is more critical than
ever. Eligible schools and libraries explain that they are hampered in
their ability to address the connectivity needs brought on, and in many
cases exacerbated, by COVID-19 because of the restrictions on off-
campus use of E-Rate-funded services and facilities. Last spring, as
the COVID-19 pandemic forced schools and libraries to grapple with the
challenges of transitioning to remote learning, the FCC began to
receive requests for emergency relief aimed at ensuring that all
students have sufficient connectivity at home. Below, the Bureau
summarizes three petitions, which reflect the experience of schools and
libraries dealing with many months of remote learning.
Most recently, a coalition of stakeholders led by SHLB filed a
petition for declaratory ruling and waivers asking the FCC to allow E-
Rate-funded services and equipment to be used off-campus to enable
remote learning for the duration of the pandemic. SHLB urges the
Bureau, on delegated authority, to declare that during the pandemic,
remote learning meets the standard of serving an ``educational
purpose'' and thus, any off-campus use does not need to be removed from
funding requests. SHLB also proposes opening a separate ``Remote
Learning Application Filing Window'' to allow applicants to file new or
revised requests for additional E-Rate funds for off-campus services
and equipment that facilitate remote learning during funding years 2020
and 2021. SHLB recommends that the FCC provide unused E-Rate funds to
support these Remote Learning applications and use the existing E-Rate
discount methodologies to prioritize funding. SHLB further requests a
waiver of E-Rate program rules, including the competitive bidding,
application, and eligible services rules to facilitate the Remote
Learning Application Filing Window.
Last fall, Colorado filed a petition requesting waiver of the
prohibition on the use of E-Rate funds and E-Rate-funded facilities and
services to allow schools to extend their broadband internet
connectivity to students who lack adequate internet connectivity at
home, and the requirement to cost-allocate such off-campus use.
Colorado explains that temporarily waiving the restrictions on off-
campus use of E-Rate-supported equipment and services is consistent
with the Communications Act, which requires the Commission to provide
support for services that ``are essential to education, public health,
or public safety'' and ``are consistent with the public interest,
convenience, and necessity.'' Colorado further explains that because
the school classroom has shifted from a shared physical space to a
virtual space during the pandemic, the Commission can and should waive
the E-Rate program requirements accordingly to provide students with
the broadband internet connectivity needed to fully engage in remote
learning. Colorado contends that the FCC can rely on the same statutory
authority to allow schools to extend connectivity to students' homes
that the Commission relied on to establish the Connected Care Pilot
Program, which funds the purchase of internet access service for
participating telehealth patients' remote use.
Last summer, Nevada filed a request for waiver of the restrictions
on the use of E-Rate-funded broadband
[[Page 9311]]
connectivity beyond school property. Nevada proposes to install fixed
wireless hotspots on the roofs of school buildings to extend their E-
Rate-funded broadband internet connectivity to a two-to-three-mile
radius around each school site for students' and staff's use. Nevada
specifies that access to the schools' networks would be restricted to
students and staff through specific credentials or by their registered
devices. According to Nevada, by leveraging existing fiber connections,
fixed wireless hotspots could ``bridge 60% of the current connectivity
gaps that exist due to geographic and economic limitations across the
State.''
The Bureau seeks comment on these and the other issues raised by
the three above-referenced petitions as well as the other petitions. To
focus our consideration of the requests, the Bureau offers some more
specific areas of inquiry.
The Bureau seeks comment on the specific equipment and services
that E-Rate should support to fund off-campus access to broadband
services for students, staff and patrons who lack adequate home
internet access. For example, the SHLB Petition requests E-Rate support
for wired or wireless network equipment and services necessary for
remote learning, including, but not limited to, wireless hotspot
devices and fixed or mobile wireless towers. Do other commenters agree
that these services and equipment are needed to support remote
learning? Are there other or different services or equipment that are
needed to support remote learning? For example, should modems, routers,
devices that combine a modem and router, or connected devices be
eligible? With respect to broadband connectivity, what level of service
is required to support remote learning? The Bureau also seeks comment
on the cost of the services and equipment needed to support remote
learning. The Bureau encourages schools, libraries and other
stakeholders that have recent experience with these services and costs
to provide specific information about the services they are purchasing,
the costs they are paying and what they have done to ensure the
services are sufficient and the costs are reasonable.
E-Rate program rules require applicants to select the most cost-
effective service offering, consistent with section 254(h)(2)(A) of the
Act. Competitive bidding is a cornerstone of the E-Rate program,
ensuring that applicants are informed of their options and service
providers have sufficient information to provide services, leading to
cost-effective pricing, and protecting limited E-Rate funds from waste,
fraud, and abuse. At the same time, due to the urgency with which
schools have needed to adapt to remote learning, both the Colorado and
SHLB Petitions seek waivers of competitive bidding rules. In the
absence of such a safeguard, how can the Commission ensure that
applicants are making cost-effective purchases? Is payment of the non-
discount share a sufficient incentive to prevent wasteful spending?
Would the same be true if adjustments are made to the non-discount
share? What steps have schools and libraries that are currently
providing off-premises broadband services to students, staff and
patrons taken to ensure that they are making cost effective purchases?
What other limitations or guardrails exist or are necessary to prevent
waste, fraud, or abuse of E-Rate program funds? Should, for example,
the Commission subject recipients of E-rate funds for remote learning
equipment and services to audits similar to those conducted in the
regular E-Rate program? Should the Commission apply existing E-Rate
program record keeping requirements to any funds it provides to enable
remote learning? What other measures should the FCC use to safeguard
these funds and ensure they are used to target students and teachers
who lack sufficient internet access at home?
Publicly available information strongly suggests that substantially
more funding might be needed than is potentially available through the
E-Rate program. In the event that demand exceeds available funding, how
should the off-campus requests be prioritized? The Bureau seeks comment
on the best approach to quickly and equitably make funding available to
those with the most need.
How can the Commission ensure that available funds are efficiently
targeted and focused on the needs of rural students; Native American,
African American and LatinX students; students with disabilities; and
other populations of students that are disproportionally affected by
the Homework Gap or are more expensive or difficult to reach? Does the
E-Rate program's existing discount rate system adequately target
students that fall into the Homework Gap, especially low-income
students and those in rural or remote areas? How can the Commission
prioritize limited E-Rate support to those students, staff, or patrons
that still do not have adequate home internet access to fully engage in
remote learning?
Colorado requests that the Commission waive its restrictions on
off-campus use of E-Rate-supported services during the COVID-19
pandemic and asserts that remote learning will remain a significant, if
not exclusive, mode of instruction through at least the 2020-21 school
year. SHLB requests that the Commission waive its restrictions on off-
campus use for funding years 2020 and 2021, due to the uncertainties of
whether students will be able to return to the classrooms during the
upcoming 2021-2022 school year. If relief is granted to the
Petitioners, should the relief provided apply on a prospective basis in
order to target the students and staff that remain without adequate
home internet access? Or, recognizing that COVID-19 has forced schools
and libraries across the country to dramatically shift the way they
operate and provide education and library services since the first
closures began in March 2020, should the relief provided apply
retroactively to services and equipment purchased during funding year
2020? If funding is allowed for prior purchases, how can the Commission
ensure that limited E-Rate funds are not used to pay for services and
equipment that were reimbursed with other federal funding, including
funding made available through the CARES Act or through the Emergency
Broadband Benefits Program? Commenters should explain how the funding
sought through the E-Rate program to address insufficient internet
access at home would not be duplicative of funding available through
the Emergency Broadband Benefits Program. What are the guardrails or
other measures that should be used to avoid duplication of limited
funds and ensure the funds are targeted to students and teachers
lacking adequate internet access at home? Should the Commission
prioritize prospective relief over reimbursements for prior purchases?
What should be the timeframe for this relief? Should it start when the
COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency? Should it end when
the national emergency is rescinded, or should another marker be used
to define this period?
According to SHLB and Colorado, allowing E-Rate-funded off-campus
support for students with inadequate internet access at home during the
pandemic is consistent with the Commission's authority to determine
which services to support under the Communications Act. SHLB explains
that the Commission can clarify that off-campus use of equipment to
support remote learning during the pandemic constitutes an educational
purpose under section 254(h)(1)(B). Colorado asserts that the
inaccessibility of physical classrooms during the
[[Page 9312]]
pandemic enables the Commission to deem at-home connectivity eligible
for these purposes under section 254(c)(1), which requires the
Commission to take into consideration, when determining eligible
services, which services ``are essential to education, public health,
or public safety'' and ``are consistent with the public interest,
convenience, and necessity.'' SHLB offers a variety of arguments for
rejecting suggestions that the reference to ``classrooms'' in section
254(b)(6) and 254(h)(2)(A) which provide that ``[t]he Commission shall
establish competitively neutral rules . . . to enhance, to the extent
technically feasible and economically reasonable, access to advanced
telecommunications and information services for all public and
nonprofit elementary and secondary school classrooms . . . .'' limits
the Commission's ability to provide E-Rate supported broadband for
remote learning. SHLB points out that the Commission already provides
E-rate support for some off-campus services and echoes Colorado's
argument that during the pandemic students' and teachers' homes have
become virtual classrooms. Both SHLB and Colorado argue that the
Commission relied on its authority under section 254(h)(2)(A) of the
Act to allow health care providers to purchase internet access services
for participating patients' use in their homes or mobile locations
during the pandemic in the Connected Care Pilot Program and can take a
similar action in the E-Rate program. They also both point out that the
Commission has the statutory authority to designate additional E-Rate
supported services. The Bureau invites other stakeholders to comment on
the Commission's legal authority to use E-Rate funding to help address
the remote learning challenges created by the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Federal Communications Commission.
Cheryl Callahan,
Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2021-02997 Filed 2-10-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
