Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Emergency Connectivity Fund for Educational Connections and Devices To Address the Homework Gap During the Pandemic, 15172-15180 [2021-05887]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 53 (Monday, March 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15172-15180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05887]



[[Page 15172]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket No. 21-93; DA 21-317; FRS 17586]


Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Emergency 
Connectivity Fund for Educational Connections and Devices To Address 
the Homework Gap During the Pandemic

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau seeks 
comment on the provision of support from the Emergency Connectivity 
Fund consistent with section 7402 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 
2021.

DATES: Comments are due April 5, 2021, and reply comments are due April 
23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: All filings should refer to WC Docket No. 21-93. 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.
    People With Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
    Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Federal 
Communications 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: Molly O'Conor, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or by email at [email protected]. The Federal 
Communications Commission asks 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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Wireline 
Competition Bureau's Public Notice in WC Docket No. 21-93; DA 21-317, 
released on March 16, 2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal 
Communications 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/wcb-seeks-comment-emergency-connectivity-fund-close-homework-gap.

Synopsis

    1. The Commission's E-Rate program is a vital source of support for 
connectivity to--and within--schools and libraries. In particular, the 
E-Rate program provides funding for internal connections, which are 
primarily used for Wi-Fi, a technology that has enabled schools and 
libraries to transition from computer labs to one-to-one digital 
learning. Today, we make permanent the ``category two budget'' approach 
that the Commission adopted in 2014 to fund these internal connections. 
The category two budget approach consists of five-year budgets for 
schools and libraries that provide a set amount of funding to support 
internal connections. In adopting this approach, the Commission also 
established a five-year test period (from funding year 2015 to funding 
year 2019), to consider whether this approach would be effective in 
ensuring greater and more equitable access to E-Rate discounts.
    2. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is a national health 
emergency with far reaching consequences for all segments of our 
society. Last spring, to reduce the transmission of coronavirus in 
their communities, most of our Nation's schools and libraries shut 
their doors and transitioned to virtual learning--and today many 
schools and libraries remain fully or partially closed. Students who 
lack home broadband access and were therefore caught in the ``Homework 
Gap'' before the pandemic now find themselves at risk of being unable 
to participate in any remote learning. At the same time, the closure of 
many libraries means that library patrons who were previously dependent 
on computer and internet access at their local libraries lost all 
broadband access.
    3. To help schools and libraries provide devices and connectivity 
to students, school staff, and library patrons during the pandemic, 
Congress established a $7.171 billion Emergency Connectivity Fund 
(Fund) as part of the recently enacted American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 
(the American Rescue Plan or Act). Congress directed the Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission)to promulgate rules providing for 
the distribution of funding from the Emergency Connectivity Fund to 
eligible schools and libraries for the purchase of eligible equipment 
and advanced telecommunications and information services for use by 
students, school staff, and library patrons at locations other than a 
school or library. By this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau 
(Bureau) seeks comment on the provision of support from the Emergency 
Connectivity Fund consistent with section 7402 of the American Rescue 
Plan.
    4. Emergency Connectivity Fund. Pursuant to the law, the Commission 
is required to promulgate rules not later than 60 days after the date 
of enactment that provide for the provision, from amounts made 
available from the Emergency Connectivity Fund, of support under 
paragraphs (1)(B) and (2) of section 254(h) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act), to an eligible school or 
library, for the purchase during a COVID-19 emergency period of 
eligible equipment or advanced telecommunications and information 
services (or both), for use by: In the case of a school, students and 
staff of the school at locations that include locations other than the 
school; and in the case of a library, patrons of the library at 
locations that include locations other than the library.
    5. The COVID-19 emergency period is defined in section 7402 of the 
American Rescue Plan as beginning on January 27,

[[Page 15173]]

2020, and ending on the June 30 that first occurs after the date that 
is one year after the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines 
that a public health emergency no longer exists. In providing support 
through the Emergency Connectivity Fund, the American Rescue Plan 
directs the Commission to reimburse 100% of the costs associated with 
the purchase of eligible equipment and/or advanced telecommunications 
and information services, ``except that any reimbursement of a school 
or library for the costs associated with any eligible equipment may not 
exceed an amount that the Commission determines, with respect to the 
request by the school or library, is reasonable.'' Section 7402 of the 
American Rescue Plan defines eligible equipment to mean Wi-Fi hotspots, 
modems, routers, devices that combine a modem and router, and connected 
devices. It also provides that the term ``advanced telecommunications 
and information services'' means advanced telecommunications and 
information services, as such term is used in section 254(h) of the 
Communications Act. Section 7402 of the American Rescue Plan further 
provides that the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative 
Company (USAC) are to administer the regulations adopted pursuant to 
the Act.
    6. Administration of the Emergency Connectivity Fund. USAC is the 
administrator of the Commission's Universal Service support programs, 
including the E-Rate program (or more formally known as the schools and 
libraries universal service support mechanism). The Commission created 
the E-Rate program, pursuant to section 254(h) of the Communications 
Act to, among other things, enhance, to the extent technically feasible 
and economically reasonable, access to advanced telecommunications and 
information services for all public and nonprofit elementary and 
secondary schools and libraries. With limited exceptions, the E-Rate 
program currently provides support to eligible schools and libraries 
for broadband connectivity to and within schools and libraries. Based 
on its experience administering the E-Rate program, USAC is well 
positioned to administer the Emergency Connectivity Fund. Therefore, 
consistent with the American Rescue Plan's direction, the Commission 
will use USAC's services to administer the Emergency Connectivity Fund, 
as described in detail below. The Bureau seeks comment on what rules 
the Commission should adopt to most efficiently and effectively 
distribute funding, mindful of the Commission's obligation to protect 
against waste, fraud, and abuse in seeking to meet the connectivity 
needs of the nation's students, school staff, and library patrons.
    7. Section 7402(c)(3) of the American Rescue Plan specifies that 
not more than two percent of the $7.171 billion made available for the 
provision of support to eligible schools and libraries may be used for 
the purposes of the Commission adopting, and USAC administering, the 
rules required by the Act. The Bureau seeks comment on ways to ensure 
that the Commission and USAC efficiently and effectively oversee and 
administer the Emergency Connectivity Fund.
    8. The Bureau also seeks comment on how to best measure the 
Commission's and USAC's performance in efficiently and effectively 
administering this Fund. Should the Commission adopt specific broadband 
adoption goals for students, school staff, and library patrons? If so, 
what should those goals be? Should the Commission adopt specific goals 
for ensuring students, school staff, and library patrons have end user 
devices for connecting to the internet? If so, what should those goals 
be? What data is available that could help establish a baseline against 
which the Commission can measure the impact of the Emergency 
Connectivity Fund? Do schools and libraries conduct assessments of 
their students', school staffs', and library patrons' need for eligible 
equipment and services? If so, how have those assessments informed 
schools' and libraries' purchasing decisions during the pandemic? What 
information should the Commission direct USAC to collect to enable the 
Commission to evaluate progress towards meeting its goals? Should the 
Commission adopt specific performance goals and measures with respect 
to the administration of the Fund as it has done for the E-Rate 
program? If so, what should those performance goals be?
    9. Eligible Schools and Libraries. Section 7402(d)(7) of the 
American Rescue Plan defines an ``eligible school or library'' as ``an 
elementary school, secondary school, or library (including a Tribal 
elementary school, Tribal secondary school, or Tribal library)'' 
eligible for support under paragraphs (1)(B) and (2) of section 254(h) 
of the Communications Act. Consistent with this definition, the Bureau 
first proposes that schools, libraries, and consortia of schools and 
libraries eligible for support under the E-Rate program be eligible to 
receive funding from the Emergency Connectivity Fund. The Bureau seeks 
comment on that proposal. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether 
there are other entities, not already eligible under the E-Rate 
program, that the Commission should make eligible for support through 
the Emergency Connectivity Fund.
    10. The Bureau recognizes that section 7402(d)(7) of the American 
Rescue Plan specifies that Tribal schools and libraries are eligible 
for funding from the Emergency Connectivity Fund. Of course, elementary 
and secondary Tribal schools, including those operated by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs and by Tribal governments, have traditionally received 
E-Rate support and, pursuant to the Bureau's proposed approach, would 
be eligible for support through the Emergency Connectivity Fund. The 
Bureau seeks comment on whether there are any changes the Commission 
should make to the definitions of elementary and secondary schools to 
ensure that all Tribal schools are eligible for funding. Some Tribal 
libraries have also received E-Rate support, but historically Tribal 
libraries have been underrepresented among E-Rate applicants. In order 
to be eligible for E-Rate funding under the Commission's existing 
rules, a library must be eligible for funding from a state library 
agency under the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), which was 
amended in 2018 to make clear that Tribal libraries are eligible for 
support from a state library agency under LSTA. The E-Rate rules have 
not yet been revised to reflect that change to the LSTA. Consistent 
with the 2018 revisions to LSTA, the Bureau seeks comment on whether 
the Commission should clarify that Tribal libraries are eligible for 
support under LSTA and are, therefore, eligible for funding from the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether 
there are other measures the Commission can take to ensure Tribal 
schools and libraries have access to the Emergency Connectivity Fund.
    11. Eligible Equipment and Services. The American Rescue Plan 
requires that support provided to eligible schools and libraries 
through the Emergency Connectivity Fund be used for the purchase during 
the COVID-19 emergency period of (i) eligible equipment and/or (ii) 
``advanced telecommunications and information services'' as the term is 
used in section 254(h) of the Communications Act for use by students, 
school staff, and library patrons at locations that include locations 
other than schools or libraries. In defining the terms ``eligible 
equipment'' and ``advanced telecommunications and information 
services'' for purposes of the rules the Commission adopts to 
distribute

[[Page 15174]]

funding from the Emergency Connectivity Fund, the Bureau proposes that 
the Commission provide funding only for equipment and services that are 
needed to provide the connectivity required to enable and support 
remote learning for students, school staff, and library patrons. The 
Bureau seeks comment on that approach, as well as comment on the 
specific equipment and services commenters consider necessary to 
support and facilitate the connectivity required for remote learning 
during the defined emergency period. In this respect, the Bureau 
invites comment from educators, school and library technology 
professionals, network engineers, librarians, and parents about the 
specific equipment and services that are necessary to facilitate and 
support the connectivity required to meet students, school staff, and 
library patrons' remote learning needs.
    12. Section 7402(d)(6) of the American Rescue Plan defines eligible 
equipment as Wi-Fi hotspots, modems, routers, devices that combine a 
modem and router, and connected devices. Wi-Fi hotspot is defined as 
``a device that is capable of receiving advanced telecommunications and 
information services; and sharing such services with another connected 
device through the use of Wi-Fi.'' Connected devices are defined as 
laptop computers, tablet computers, or similar end-user devices that 
are capable of connecting to advanced telecommunications and 
information services. The Bureau proposes to use the same definitions 
for eligible equipment in the Commission's rules implementing section 
7402 of the American Rescue Plan, and seeks comment on doing so. Is 
more specificity required? For example, should the Bureau clarify that 
modems include wireless modems, such as air cards? Should the 
Commission provide any further guidance regarding what sorts of 
connected devices are eligible for reimbursement through the Emergency 
Connectivity Fund? Is there a commonly understood definition of a 
tablet computer that the Bureau should use to ensure that the available 
funds are directed toward their intended purpose? Although not 
specifically identified, should desktop computers be eligible for 
funding as ``similar end-user devices'' that are capable of connecting 
to ``advanced telecommunications and information services''? The Bureau 
seeks comment on these questions and whether greater specificity or 
clarification is required with regard to eligible equipment.
    13. Recognizing that participating in remote learning requires a 
device that can support an array of learning technologies, including 
video conferencing platforms, the Bureau proposes that a connected 
device supported through the Emergency Connectivity Fund be able to 
support video conferencing platforms and other software necessary to 
ensure full participation in remote learning activities. In this 
regard, the Bureau specifically proposes not to include mobile phones 
(i.e., smartphones) as eligible connected devices because such devices 
do not sufficiently allow students, school staff, and library patrons 
to meaningfully participate in remote learning activities and thus do 
not qualify as ``similar'' devices under American Rescue Plan. The 
Bureau seeks comment on this proposal and its underlying reasoning. The 
Bureau also seeks comment on whether the Commission should impose 
minimum system requirements for connected devices supported by the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund and, if so, what those system requirements 
should be. In addition, as it did with respect to connected devices 
supported under the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, should the 
Commission require that connected devices be Wi-Fi enabled and have 
video and camera functions to enable remote learning?
    14. The Bureau recognizes that people with disabilities have faced 
additional challenges as a result of the pandemic-necessitated 
transition to remote learning. For that reason, in the Emergency 
Broadband Benefit Program Order, the Commission established an 
expectation that connected devices supported by the Emergency Broadband 
Benefit Program be ``accessible to and usable by people with 
disabilities.'' Are there rules that the Commission should adopt to 
ensure that ``connected devices'' eligible for support from the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund are accessible to and usable by people with 
different types of disabilities, including people who are deaf or hard 
of hearing; blind or with low vision; deaf and blind; and those with 
physical disabilities? What other issues should the Commission consider 
when adopting requirements for connected devices to ensure that all 
students, school staff, and library patrons will be able to fully 
engage in remote learning?
    15. The Bureau also seeks comment on how to define ``advanced 
telecommunications and information services'' for purposes of the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund. The E-Rate program provides support for 
what are called ``category one'' services (which provide connectivity 
to schools and libraries) and ``category two'' services (which provide 
connectivity within schools and libraries). Category one services 
generally include data transmission and internet access services, while 
category two services include internal connections (e.g., Wi-Fi), 
managed internal broadband services (e.g., managed Wi-Fi), and basic 
maintenance of internal connections. The Bureau proposes to treat a 
subset of the services currently available for category one E-Rate 
support as eligible ``advanced telecommunications and information 
services'' for purposes of the Emergency Connectivity Fund. In 
considering the specific category one services the Commission should 
make eligible for purposes of the Emergency Connectivity Fund, the 
Bureau proposes that such services be limited to those that can be 
supported by and delivered with eligible equipment as defined in the 
American Rescue Plan (i.e., Wi-Fi hotspots, modems, routers, devices 
that combine a modem and router, and connected devices). As such, the 
Bureau seeks comment on excluding from funding dark fiber and the 
construction of new networks, including the construction of self-
provisioned networks. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals and 
the underlying assumption that the construction of new networks is not 
supported by the statutory text enumerating eligible equipment in 
section 7402 of the American Rescue Plan. Are there any other specific 
services currently eligible as category one services in the existing E-
Rate program that the Commission should consider ineligible for the 
purposes of the Emergency Connectivity Fund?
    16. Additionally, although section 7402 of the American Rescue Plan 
limits the specific equipment eligible for funding through the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund, should the Commission interpret ``advanced 
telecommunications and information services'' to include the equipment 
necessary to deliver these services to connected devices as eligible? 
Should installation costs, taxes, and fees be included as an allowable 
cost? In interpreting ``advanced telecommunications and information 
services'' eligible for support, are there equipment or services that 
would be particularly helpful to people with different types of 
disabilities?
    17. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
impose minimum service standards and data thresholds with respect to 
those services in order to consider them to be eligible advanced 
telecommunications and information services. If so, what should they 
be? In that regard, the

[[Page 15175]]

Bureau seeks comment on what standards are needed to enable and 
facilitate robust remote learning. In response to the Remote Learning 
Public Notification, 86 FR 9309, February 12, 2021, commenters 
disagreed about whether the Commission's current benchmark of 25 Mbps 
downstream and 3 Mbps upstream is sufficient to adequately support 
remote learning needs. The Bureau seeks comment on whether applying the 
Commission's current speed benchmark as a minimum standard here would 
be appropriate for these purposes. If that benchmark is not sufficient, 
what should the downstream and upstream targets be? Recognizing that 
some households have more than one student, school staff member, or 
library patron, and that video conferencing applications commonly used 
for remote learning place heavy demands on speed and use large amounts 
of data, what level of service and data thresholds are needed to 
accommodate multiple users? Additionally, the Bureau invites comment on 
what speeds are necessary for people with disabilities to use 
Telecommunications Relay Services and, in particular, Video Relay 
Services. The Bureau encourages commenters to provide alternative 
recommendations for minimum service levels. Given that many schools and 
libraries have already purchased advanced telecommunications and 
information services to meet the needs of their students, school staff, 
and library patrons, should the Commission impose minimum service 
standards on a going-forward basis only, if at all?
    18. Service Locations. The Bureau expects that most students, 
school staff, and library patrons are engaged in remote learning from 
their homes during the pandemic and thus need connectivity at home. 
However, the Bureau recognizes that some students, school staff, and 
library patrons are unhoused or otherwise unable to engage in remote 
learning from home. The American Rescue Plan does not define the 
specific locations where students, school staff, and library patrons 
can use eligible equipment and services. Instead, it specifies that in 
the case of a school, eligible equipment and/or services must be used 
in ``locations that include locations other than the school'' and, in 
the case of a library, ``locations that include locations other than 
the library.'' Wi-Fi hotspots can be easily moved and used in different 
locations, but fixed broadband connections are delivered to a specific 
location. To ensure that the Commission maximizes the use of limited 
funds, should the Commission impose restrictions on what locations can 
receive wireline and fixed wireless services supported by this Fund for 
remote learning? Should the Commission limit one connection per 
location for fixed broadband services? Should the Commission impose any 
per-location limitation on Wi-Fi hotspots? What authority does the 
Commission have to impose such restrictions on locations and what 
should these restrictions be?
    19. Recent studies suggest that between $6 to $12 billion in 
funding is needed to provide connectivity and connected devices to all 
students and teachers who currently lack sufficient broadband access 
and/or devices to fully engage in remote learning. To maximize 
available funds, the Bureau proposes that the Commission require that 
schools document the student(s) and staff member served at each 
supported location and prohibit schools from providing more than one 
supported connection and more than one connected device to each student 
or staff member. Likewise, the Bureau proposes that the Commission 
require libraries to document the patron or patrons served at each 
supported location and prohibit libraries from providing more than one 
supported connection and one connected device to any one patron at a 
given time. In proposing this approach to limit one device per student, 
school staff member, or library patron, the Bureau seeks to avoid 
unnecessarily providing funding for multiple connected devices to 
individual students, school staff, and library patrons. The Bureau 
recognizes that in some cases, schools or libraries may purchase Wi-Fi 
hotspots to provide cost-effective access to multiple students, school 
staff, or library patrons at the same time. For example, some schools 
have installed Wi-Fi hotspots on buses to provide broadband service to 
students and school staff located in the areas where the buses are 
deployed. The Bureau proposes that the Commission adopt rules to allow 
schools to use Wi-Fi hotspots on buses to provide broadband services to 
students and school staff who currently lack sufficient broadband 
access to fully engage in remote learning. The Bureau also proposes 
that the Commission adopt rules to allow libraries to use Wi-Fi 
hotspots in bookmobiles to serve library patrons who currently lack 
sufficient broadband access. Are there other places schools and 
libraries should be able to place Wi-Fi hotspots to provide broadband 
to students, school staff, and library patrons who currently lack 
broadband access? Are there other approaches to funding broadband 
access to multiple students that the Commission should incorporate into 
its rules implementing the Emergency Connectivity Fund? For example, 
some school districts have bulk purchase programs to provide free 
broadband service to students and their families. Would this proposed 
approach allow other school districts to establish similar programs?
    20. While seeking to ensure that schools and libraries do not seek 
funding for more equipment and services than they need, the Bureau also 
recognizes that connected devices and other eligible equipment can 
break. The Bureau therefore seeks comment on what, if any, allowances 
or controls may be necessary to allow schools and libraries to 
remediate such issues and how the Commission can prevent warehousing of 
unnecessary equipment and connected devices?
    21. Eligible Uses. The Bureau seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should require that equipment and services purchased with 
funding from the Emergency Connectivity Fund be primarily for 
educational purposes. Although the text of the American Rescue Plan is 
silent on permitted uses of eligible equipment and services, section 
7402 of the Act is entitled ``Funding for E-Rate Support for Emergency 
Educational Connections and Devices.'' It also provides that the 
Commission should promulgate rules for the provision of funding from 
the Emergency Connectivity Fund consistent with sections 254(h)(1)(B) 
and (2) of the Communications Act. Section 254(h)(1)(B) of the 
Communications Act requires telecommunications carriers to provide 
services to schools and libraries for ``educational purposes.'' 
Consistent with this section of the Communications Act, the Commission 
requires schools and libraries participating in the E-Rate program to 
use E-Rate supported services ``primarily for educational purposes'' 
and has established a presumption that activities that occur on a 
school campus or in a library building serve an educational purpose, 
and therefore, are eligible for E-Rate funding. Specifically, in the 
case of schools, the Commission has defined ``educational purposes'' as 
``activities that are integral, immediate, and proximate to the 
education of students.'' In the case of libraries, it has defined 
``educational purposes'' as activities that are ``integral, immediate, 
and proximate to the provision of library services to library 
patrons.''
    22. If the Commission adopts this approach, what guidance should 
the

[[Page 15176]]

Commission provide schools and libraries about how eligible equipment 
and services can be used? What safeguards should the Commission impose 
to ensure that schools and libraries are reimbursed only for the 
purchase of equipment and services used primarily for educational 
purposes? Should, for example, schools and libraries be required to 
restrict access to eligible equipment and services to those students, 
school staff, and patrons with appropriate credentials? Would such an 
approach allow support for bulk programs that serve a large number of 
students and their families?
    23. Reasonable Support Amount. Section 7402(b) of the American 
Rescue Plan specifies that in providing support under the regulations 
it adopts, the Commission shall reimburse 100% of the costs associated 
with eligible equipment and services, ``except that any reimbursement 
of a school or library for the costs associated with any eligible 
equipment may not exceed an amount that the Commission determines, with 
respect to the request by the school or library for reimbursement, is 
reasonable.'' Section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act requires 
the Commission provide access to advanced telecommunications and 
information services to the ``extent technically feasible and 
economically reasonable.''
    24. As an initial matter, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should reimburse for purchases of eligible equipment and 
services made by eligible schools and libraries since January 27, 2020. 
Do commenters interpret the American Rescue Plan as requiring the 
Commission to do so, subject to the Commission's authority to determine 
reasonable costs for eligible equipment and services? If the Commission 
has the authority to set a different date, what date should it choose 
and why?
    25. The E-Rate specific competitive bidding rules are a crucial 
driver of cost-effective purchasing and protecting limited E-Rate funds 
from waste, fraud, and abuse. However, the Bureau recognizes that many 
schools and libraries have already entered into contracts to purchase 
eligible equipment and services to meet the remote learning needs of 
their students, school staff, and patrons. The Bureau therefore 
proposes to allow eligible schools and libraries to seek reimbursement 
for the cost of eligible equipment and services purchased without 
having conducted a Commission-mandated competitive bidding process for 
purposes of the Emergency Connectivity Fund. Instead, the Bureau 
proposes that the Commission require schools and libraries seeking 
funding from the Emergency Connectivity Fund to certify that they have 
complied with all applicable state, Tribal, or local procurement 
requirements with respect to the contracts they used to purchase 
eligible equipment and services. Can the Commission reasonably assume 
that schools and libraries that complied with applicable state, local 
and Tribal procurement requirements purchased eligible equipment and 
services at reasonable prices? The Bureau recognizes that there are 
some eligible schools and libraries, those that are operated by non-
profit entities, that do not have state, Tribal, or local procurement 
requirements. The Bureau seeks comment on how to ensure that the costs 
of their purchases are reasonable.
    26. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
adopt a streamlined competitive bidding process to be used by eligible 
schools and libraries that have not yet purchased or entered into 
contracts to purchase eligible equipment and/or services. In adopting 
such a process, should the Commission reduce to 14 days the time that 
an applicant must wait to enter into a contract with a service provider 
after posting a request for bids? Are there other ways the Commission 
could streamline the competitive bidding process? For example, should 
the Commission adopt the modified competitive bidding rules adopted in 
the 2017 Hurricanes Order? Are there other exemptions the Commission 
should consider for the competitive bidding requirements? For example, 
are there state master contracts that schools and libraries should be 
allowed to use for purchases that are reimbursed through the Emergency 
Connectivity Fund without having to conduct a competitive bidding 
process? The Bureau seeks comment on these issues and request examples 
of such contracts be provided.
    27. In deciding what amount is reasonable to reimburse applicants 
for previous purchases or pay for new purchases, the Bureau also seeks 
comment on whether the Commission should establish a range of costs 
that are reasonable for each category of equipment and service eligible 
for funding through the Emergency Connectivity Fund (i.e., Wi-Fi 
hotspots; modems; routers; devices that combine a modem and router; 
connected devices; and advanced telecommunications and information 
services). How should the Commission determine the reasonableness of 
the costs associated with each category of eligible equipment and 
service? Should the Commission rely on costs for eligible equipment and 
services identified in response to this Public Notice, the Remote 
Learning Public Notification, or used in the Emergency Broadband 
Benefit Program and/or the existing E-Rate program to determine what is 
reasonable?
    28. For example, in response to the Remote Learning Public 
Notification, commenters reported purchasing hotspots for as low as $0 
(with a one-year commitment) to up to $144.99 per device, plus an 
additional $10.00 to $40.00 per month for service. With regards to 
connected devices, the price of Chromebooks reportedly ranged from 
$160.00 to $650.00 per device. And in the Emergency Broadband Benefit 
Program, an eligible household may receive a single reimbursement of up 
to $100 for a connected device, if the charge to the eligible household 
for that device is more than $10 but less than $50. Should the 
Commission consider any of these price ranges or other cost ranges when 
determining what is reasonable for Wi-Fi hotspots and/or connected 
devices supported by the Emergency Connectivity Fund? Similarly, in 
response to the Remote Learning Public Notification, commenters 
provided examples of the monthly rates associated with students' home 
internet access that ranged from $9.95 to $50.00 per month. And in the 
Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, eligible households may receive a 
monthly discount on the rate for an internet service offering and 
associated equipment, of up to $50.00 per month, and on Tribal lands, 
of up to $75.00 per month. Should the Commission consider any of these 
rates or caps when determining what is reasonable for monthly broadband 
services to the home? The Bureau seeks comment on the reasonableness of 
these costs and invite commenters to provide specific costs associated 
with each of these categories of eligible equipment and services.
    29. Alternatively, should the amount the Commission considers 
reasonable for each category of eligible equipment and service vary 
depending on location (i.e., whether the student, school staff member, 
or library patron is in an urban or rural area)? Rather than a range of 
reasonable costs, should the Commission adopt maximum amounts it deems 
is reasonable to reimburse for each type of eligible equipment and 
service, and if so, what should those maximum prices be? For eligible 
equipment, such as laptops and tablets, should the maximum price be 
higher for equipment provided to students, school staff, and library 
patrons with

[[Page 15177]]

disabilities? For advanced telecommunications and information services, 
should the maximum cost be higher for rural areas or on Tribal lands?
    30. The Bureau further seeks comment on whether the Commission 
should establish one or more funding caps and, if so, what such caps 
should be? For example, should there be a funding cap on any type of 
eligible equipment or service? If the Commission were to establish any 
funding cap, the Bureau seeks comment on whether and how a cap could 
assist the Commission in targeting the Emergency Connectivity Fund 
support to those students, school staff, and library patrons that are 
most in need and how to determine which students, school staff, and 
library patrons have the greatest need.
    31. The E-Rate program provides greater discounts to schools and 
libraries that serve lower-income and rural populations. Should the 
Commission consider accounting for other factors such as poverty, 
rurality, and/or broadband availability in the Emergency Connectivity 
Fund? Recognizing the trust relationship between Tribal governments and 
the federal government, should the Commission allocate a portion of the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund for Tribal schools and libraries to ensure 
Tribal students, school staff and library patrons benefit from the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund? If so, what portion of the fund should the 
Commission set aside for Tribal schools and libraries?
    32. Application Process. The Bureau proposes that the Commission 
direct USAC to open a 30-day Emergency Connectivity Fund filing window 
to allow eligible schools and libraries to apply for funding for 
eligible equipment and services purchases made or to be made between 
January 27, 2020 and June 30, 2021, which is the period between the 
start of the COVID-19 emergency period and the end of E-Rate funding 
year 2021. Each E-Rate funding year runs from July 1st of one year 
through June 30th of the following year.
    33. The current E-Rate application filing window for funding year 
2021 closes March 25, 2021, so opening an Emergency Connectivity Fund 
filing window after that date will not interfere with the regular E-
Rate application filing window. The Bureau seeks comment on this 
proposal. Is 30 days an appropriate filing window length? Although the 
Bureau expects demand will be high for the first funding window, if 
demand does not exceed available funds for the first application 
period, the Bureau also proposes that the Commission direct USAC to 
open a filing window for the Emergency Connectivity Fund in the second 
quarter of every year (i.e., between April and June) for each of the 
following funding years, until the funds are exhausted or the emergency 
period ends, whichever is earlier. The Bureau seeks comment on this 
proposal. Should the Bureau require applicants to conduct an assessment 
of their need for eligible equipment and services and to align the 
funding requests that they file during the second and subsequent filing 
windows with their needs assessments? Should future filing windows be 
limited to prospective funding requests? The Bureau also seeks comment 
on whether more than one filing window(s) a year should be open during 
the emergency period.
    34. With respect to the applications themselves, the Bureau 
proposes and seeks comment on leveraging the current E-Rate forms to 
apply for support from the Emergency Connectivity Fund. The Bureau 
believes that modifying the current forms, with which applicants are 
already familiar, will provide the simplest process for applying for 
and receiving funding through the Emergency Connectivity Fund. Do 
commenters agree or have any concerns about this approach? In addition, 
the Bureau seeks comment on what other aspects of the application 
process the Commission should borrow from the existing E-Rate program 
(e.g., FCC Form 471, certifications, Program Integrity Assurance 
review, E-Rate Productivity Center). The Bureau also seeks comment on 
what other E-Rate program rules and requirements are necessary and 
should be adopted for the Emergency Connectivity Fund.
    35. Prioritization of Funding. The Bureau proposes that the 
Commission adopt rules applying the discount methodology used in the 
existing E-Rate program to prioritize funding requests, in the event 
that demand exceeds available funding. Under this approach, once an 
application filing window closes, USAC will calculate whether demand 
exceeds the available funds. If demand exceeds available funds at the 
close of an application filing window, USAC would issue funding 
decision letters starting with the schools and libraries eligible for 
the highest discount percentage established under the Commission's E-
Rate program rules and stop issuing decision letters when sufficient 
funds are no longer available to meet the demand at a particular 
discount level. The Bureau seeks comment on whether this is the best 
approach for prioritizing funding requests, as well as whether the 
Commission should consider any alternative methods for prioritizing 
such requests to help ensure that limited funds are fairly and 
efficiently distributed to eligible schools and libraries.
    36. For example, recognizing that the proposed prioritization 
scheme based on the existing discount methodology may not adequately 
address the needs of all students, school staff, and library patrons, 
particularly for those students enrolled in schools that qualify for a 
lower discount but still lack a broadband connection or connected 
device at home, should the Commission instead prioritize funding 
requests to target the needs of those students, school staff, and 
library patrons without adequate broadband access at home and/or that 
lack a connected device? If so, how would eligible schools and 
libraries identify this population in advance of a filing window? 
Should the Commission prioritize funding for future purchases rather 
than reimbursements for already purchased equipment and services, and 
would doing so target funds to those students, school staff, and 
library patrons who remain unconnected? Miami-Dade County Public 
Schools suggests retroactive reimbursement for device purchases but 
only prospective funding for services. Would doing so target funds to 
unconnected students? Would it unreasonably penalize schools and 
libraries that have allocated limited resources to getting students, 
school staff, and library patrons broadband services? Should the 
Commission require eligible schools and libraries to certify that they 
will make best efforts to prioritize these students, school staff, and 
library patrons? Or, should the Commission establish formal rules 
requiring a written policy or plan for distribution? In the event of a 
certification, rules, or other reporting requirements, are audits the 
best manner to ensure compliance with this prioritization? 
Alternatively, should the Commission prioritize funding requests for 
prior purchases over requests submitted for new purchases?
    37. Reimbursement Process. The Bureau also seeks comment on the 
reimbursement process and on how the Commission can structure the 
process to provide funds to schools and libraries as quickly as 
possible to assist with the challenges presented by the pandemic. The 
Bureau seeks to reduce the burdens on applicants during this 
challenging time, while also ensuring that funds are used for eligible 
equipment and services and primarily for an educational purpose, and 
otherwise minimize the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. The Bureau 
proposes requiring applicants

[[Page 15178]]

(rather than service providers) to submit invoices detailing the items 
purchased to receive reimbursement. The Bureau seeks comment on this 
proposal. What documentation should be included with the reimbursement 
request? Is having schools and libraries submit invoices and 
documentation an effective safeguard against the misuse of funds given 
that reimbursement is for 100% of the costs? Or, in the alternative, 
could a streamlined invoicing form or other invoice mechanism simplify 
review and be an effective safeguard against waste, fraud, and abuse of 
the Emergency Connectivity Fund? In order to ensure efficient 
administration of the Emergency Connectivity Fund and allow the 
Commission to de-obligate committed funds for use by other schools and 
libraries, the Bureau also proposes establishing a short window for 
schools and libraries to file invoices and reimbursement requests. What 
would be the shortest possible invoice filing deadline period that 
would not impose undue burden on applicants? What other aspects of the 
invoicing and reimbursement process should the Commission use from the 
existing E-Rate program (e.g., FCC Form 472, certifications, etc.) for 
the Emergency Connectivity Fund? The Bureau seeks comment on these 
issues and on any other issues related to reimbursement for eligible 
equipment and services purchased through the Emergency Connectivity 
Fund.
    38. Treatment of Eligible Equipment during and after the COVID-19 
Emergency Period. The Bureau seeks comment on the treatment of 
equipment purchased through the Emergency Connectivity Fund during and 
after the COVID-19 emergency period. Should, for example, schools and 
libraries be permitted to use eligible equipment for any purpose that 
the school or library considers appropriate after the emergency period? 
Or, should the use of eligible equipment after the emergency period 
continue to be restricted to primarily educational purposes as defined 
by the Commission? Similarly, should the Commission prohibit the sale, 
resale, or transfer of the purchased equipment for anything of value 
consistent with the current E-Rate program rules during and after the 
emergency period? Or, recognizing the relatively short lifespan of most 
computers and communications equipment, should schools and libraries 
have flexibility about how to dispose of equipment after the emergency 
period? Are there any other restrictions the Commission should impose 
on the use of eligible equipment both during and after the emergency 
period ends?
    39. The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). The Bureau seeks 
comment regarding the applicability of CIPA to the devices and services 
funded through the Emergency Connectivity Fund. CIPA prohibits schools 
and libraries participating in the E-Rate program from receiving E-Rate 
funding under section 254(h)(1)(b) for internet access services, or 
internal connections, unless they comply with, and certify their 
compliance with, specific internet safety requirements, including the 
operation of a technology protection measure. Schools, but not 
libraries, must also provide education about appropriate online 
behavior, including warnings against cyberbullying. Section 254 of the 
Communications Act specifies that CIPA applies to schools and libraries 
``having computers with internet access,'' and also requires each such 
school or library to certify that it is enforcing a policy of internet 
safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure 
``with respect to any of its computers with internet access.'' The 
Bureau seeks comment on whether the CIPA requirements extend to all 
school or library devices supported by funding through the Emergency 
Connectivity Fund that are used off-campus and outside the traditional 
E-Rate-supported networks. If so, the Bureau also seeks comment on 
whether the Commission should modify any of the existing CIPA-related 
rules or procedures to cover this situation. For example, should a CIPA 
certification be included on the application for funding, rather than 
on a separate form? Should a CIPA certification made in the traditional 
E-Rate program suffice for compliance to receive support from the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund?
    40. Other Federal and State Funding for Remote Learning. To avoid 
duplicate funding and to stretch the limited Emergency Connectivity 
Fund, the Bureau proposes limiting reimbursements out of the Emergency 
Connectivity Fund to those made for eligible equipment and services for 
which schools and libraries have not received funding through other 
Federal programs (i.e., Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, the CARES 
Act, or other provisions of the American Rescue Plan); state programs 
specifically targeted at providing funding for eligible equipment and 
services; other external sources of funding; or gifts. The Bureau 
further proposes that schools and libraries must certify that they have 
not received and will not seek funding for the funded equipment and/or 
services from other federal or targeted state programs when seeking 
funding or reimbursement through the Emergency Connectivity Fund. The 
Bureau seeks comment on this proposal and whether there should be 
additional safeguards to prevent duplicate funding for the same 
equipment and services across the federal universal service programs 
and other federal or targeted state funding programs, as well as 
avoiding reimbursement for items that were provided as a gift.
    41. The Bureau recognize that some state entities apply for E-Rate 
program funding as a consortium on behalf of the eligible schools and 
libraries located within the state. The Bureau seeks comment on whether 
these applicants should be allowed to seek reimbursement for eligible 
equipment and services through the Emergency Connectivity Fund when 
state funding was used to purchase equipment and services necessary for 
the state's students to engage in remote learning during the emergency 
period. Would the Commission maximize the Emergency Connectivity Fund 
by prohibiting reimbursement for eligible equipment and services that 
were purchased with state funding? Would the Commission harm these 
applicants by prohibiting reimbursement of eligible equipment and 
services when state funding was used? The Bureau seeks comment on these 
issues and other ways to prevent duplicative funding between the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund and other funding programs.
    42. Other Protections Against Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. The Bureau 
is committed to ensuring the integrity and fiscal responsibility of the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund and protecting the funds against waste, 
fraud, and abuse. To help the Commission protect the Emergency 
Connectivity Fund from potential waste, fraud, and abuse, and 
consistent with current E-Rate program rules, the Bureau proposes that 
the Commission require Emergency Connectivity Fund participants to 
retain records related to their participation in the Fund sufficient to 
demonstrate their compliance with the rules adopted by the Commission 
for at least 10 years from the last date of service or delivery of 
equipment. The Bureau also proposes that the Commission require 
participants to present that information upon request to the Commission 
and its delegates, including USAC, and to the staff of the Commission's 
Office of Inspector General. The Bureau seeks comment on these 
proposals.
    43. As part of the documentation related to their compliance with 
the rules adopted by the Commission, the Bureau proposes that Emergency

[[Page 15179]]

Connectivity Fund participants be required to maintain an asset 
inventory of devices purchased with these funds and record at a 
minimum: Device type (i.e., laptop, tablet, mobile hotspot, modem 
gateway/router); device make/model and equipment serial number; the 
individual to whom the device was provided; and the dates the device 
was provided to and returned by the individual. Similarly, the Bureau 
proposes requiring Emergency Connectivity Fund participants to maintain 
a record of the services purchased with these funds, recording at a 
minimum: Type of service provided (i.e., DSL, cable, fiber, fixed 
wireless, satellite, mobile wireless); broadband plan details, 
including: Upload and download speeds and the monthly data cap; and the 
individual(s) to whom the service was provided. For fixed broadband 
service, the Bureau also proposes to require applicants to maintain a 
record of the service address for the broadband service and the actual 
installation date of service. The Bureau seeks comment on these 
proposals.
    44. Given the limited financial support that is available through 
the Emergency Connectivity Fund, the Bureau believes that if students, 
school staff, and library patrons are not using the funded services, 
the Fund should not be paying for these services. To protect the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund from waste, fraud, and abuse, the Bureau 
seeks comment on requiring service providers providing monthly services 
reimbursed through this Fund to report and validate usage of the 
supported services provided after adoption of new rules. In the event 
there is non-usage during a service month, the Bureau seeks comment on 
requiring the service provider to notify the school or library 
regarding the non-usage and to remove the cost for any non-used service 
from the invoice provided to the school or library. In the Emergency 
Broadband Benefit Program, service providers are required to certify 
that every subscriber claimed has used their supported service, as 
defined by Sec.  54.407(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, at least once 
during the service month being claimed to be able to claim that 
subscriber for reimbursement in that month. What are the costs and 
benefits of such an approach? The Bureau seeks comment on whether 
existing contracts negotiated to purchase eligible equipment and 
services include provisions on non-usage and if not, what are the 
implications for addressing and preventing non-usage on a going-forward 
basis? The Bureau further seeks comment on other ways to ensure devices 
and services supported through the Emergency Connectivity Fund are 
being used and to limit any non-usage of these services and devices.
    45. To ensure the integrity of whatever procurement process 
requirements the Commission decides to adopt for purposes of the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should apply the gift rule applicable to the E-Rate program, 
or some version of the rule, here. The E-Rate program's gift rule 
prohibits E-Rate applicants from soliciting or accepting any gift or 
other thing of value from a service provider participating in or 
seeking to participate in the program, and similarly, prohibits service 
providers from offering or providing any gift or other thing of value 
to those personnel of eligible entities. In response to the pandemic, 
and in light of the urgent and increased need for connectivity and 
connected devices, in March 2020 (85 FR 59196, Sept. 21, 2020), the 
Bureau temporarily waived this rule, and subsequently extended the 
waiver, to help schools and libraries work with service providers as 
they transitioned to remote learning. The Bureau seeks comment on 
whether it would be appropriate for the Commission to adopt the same or 
similar restrictions on gifts for purposes of the Emergency 
Connectivity Fund. If the Commission adopts gift restrictions for the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund, should it do so on a going-forward basis 
only, recognizing that many schools and libraries may have taken 
advantage of free or discounted connections and devices offered by 
service providers when they made their purchases? The Bureau also seeks 
comment on whether gift restrictions should not be adopted for the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
    46. The Bureau further proposes that Emergency Connectivity Fund 
participants be subject to compliance audits to ensure compliance with 
the rules and requirements for the Emergency Connectivity Fund and must 
provide documentation related to their participation in the Emergency 
Connectivity Fund in connection with any such audit. The Bureau 
proposes that the Commission authorize USAC to conduct audits and 
establish procedures to verify support amounts provided through the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
    47. The Bureau seeks comment on what other compliance mechanisms 
and safeguards should be implemented to protect the Emergency 
Connectivity Fund from waste, fraud, and abuse and to ensure the funds 
are being used to provide eligible equipment and advanced 
telecommunications services and information services necessary for 
students, school staff, and library patrons to fully engage in remote 
learning. In addition, other than the certifications for which the 
Bureau already seeks comment, should the Commission require Emergency 
Connectivity Fund participants (i.e., schools, libraries and service 
providers) to certify to any other specific rules or requirements? Are 
there any other rules or requirements the Commission should consider 
adopting for the Emergency Connectivity Fund?
    48. Enforcement. The Bureau seeks comment on the ability of the 
Commission to impose administrative forfeitures and other penalties on 
program participants found to be in violation of the program rules and 
requirements. The Bureau proposes to use the Commission's existing, 
statutorily permitted enforcement powers to, for example, initiate 
investigations and impose administrative forfeitures. The Bureau also 
proposes to withhold program funds from participants found to be in 
violation of the Emergency Connectivity Fund program rules. The Bureau 
seeks comment on these proposals. Should the Bureau also withhold 
program funding from participants found to be in violation of other 
Commission rules, particularly those Commission rules pertaining to the 
Commission's universal service fund programs? The Bureau also proposes 
to apply the Commission's existing suspension and debarment rules to 
program participants and seeks comment on this proposal.
    49. Costs and Benefits. The Bureau seeks comment on the costs and 
benefits of the approaches the Bureau has proposed for oversight and 
administration of the Emergency Connectivity Fund. The Bureau also 
encourages commenters to explain the costs and benefits of any 
recommendations they make in the record of this proceeding. In both 
cases, the Bureau recognizes the American Rescue Plan requires the 
Commission to take a range of actions, and thus a conventional cost 
benefit analysis, which would seek to determine whether the costs of 
the required actions exceed their benefits, is not directly called for. 
Instead, as laid out in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
guidelines, the Bureau proposes to determine whether the Commission's 
proposed actions are the most cost-effective means to implement this 
legislation, recognizing that these actions are designed to mitigate a 
crisis

[[Page 15180]]

and that the effectiveness of the Commission's actions in mitigating 
that crisis is likely to be sharply reduced by delay. The Bureau seeks 
comment on this proposal.

Procedural Matters

    50. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains 
proposed new or modified information collection requirements. As part 
of the Commission's continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the 
Commission invites the general public and OMB to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this document, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 
specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.
    51. Ex Parte Rules. Proceedings in this Notice 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 (1) list all persons 
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex 
parte presentation was made, and (2) 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.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54

    Communications common carriers, Internet, Libraries, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Cheryl Callahan,
Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline 
Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2021-05887 Filed 3-18-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P