Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on the Implementation of the Affordable Connectivity Program, 74036-74062 [2021-27775]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 29, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74036-74062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27775]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket No. 21-450; DA 21-1453; FRS 62653]


Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on the Implementation 
of the Affordable Connectivity Program

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In the document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 
seeks comment on the requirements for the Affordable Connectivity 
Program and a timeline for its rapid implementation.

DATES: January 5, 2022. If you anticipate that you will be submitting 
comments, but find it difficult to do so within the

[[Page 74037]]

period of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact 
listed in the following as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec.  1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before December 28, 
2021. All filings should refer to WC Docket No. 21-450. Filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission. 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 may be filed electronically via 
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. Filings can be sent by hand or 
messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class 
or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.
     Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courtier or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. Due to the COVID-19 
pandemic, the Commission closed its hand-delivery filing location at 
FCC Headquarters effective March 19, 2020. As a result, hand or 
messenger delivered filings in response to this Public Notice will not 
be accepted. Parties are encouraged to take full advantage of the 
Commission's electronic filing system for filing applicable documents. 
Except when the filer requests that materials be withheld from public 
inspection, any document may be submitted electronically through the 
Commission's ECFS. Persons that need to submit confidential filings to 
the Commission should follow the instructions provided in the 
Commission's March 31, 2020 public notice regarding the procedures for 
submission of confidential materials. All 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 Street 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 (voice).
    Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding 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 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 in these proceedings 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact Eric Wu, Telecommunications Policy Access Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-7400 or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's Public 
Notice (Notice) in WC Docket No. 21-450, released on November 18, 2021. 
The full text of this document is available for public inspection on 
the Commission's website at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-comment-new-affordable-connectivity-program.

I. Introduction

    1. On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act or Act), which modifies and 
extends the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program (EBB Program) to a 
longer-term broadband affordability program to be called the Affordable 
Connectivity Program (sometimes referred to as ``ACP''). The 
Infrastructure Act directs the Commission to undertake a proceeding to 
adopt final rules for this modified program. Consistent with this 
directive, the Bureau herein seeks comment on the requirements for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program and a timeline for its rapid 
implementation.
    2. The Commission established the rules for and structure of the 
EBB Program earlier this year based on the framework provided in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act. The text of the Infrastructure Act 
establishing the Affordable Connectivity Program relies in large part 
on the EBB Program directives in the Consolidated Appropriations Act by 
overlaying new Affordable Connectivity Program requirements on top of 
EBB Program requirements, as well as by providing additional 
requirements. The Infrastructure Act, however, retains many of the EBB 
Program requirements found in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The 
Infrastructure Act, for example, does not modify the procedural and 
rulemaking timeline requirements contained in section 904(c) of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, and the Bureau interprets section 
904(c) as also pertaining to the promulgation of rules for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. Therefore, for purposes of this 
rulemaking, the Bureau must initiate this rulemaking within five days 
of enactment of the Infrastructure Act, must set a 20-day public 
comment period followed by a 20-day period for replies, and the 
Commission must resolve the rulemaking within 60 days of enactment.
    3. The Infrastructure Act also directs the Commission to effectuate 
for the Affordable Connectivity Program specified changes, such as to 
EBB Program eligibility and the program benefit amount, by the 
effective date, which the statute defines as the date the Commission 
notifies Congress that all EBB Program funds have been fully expended 
or December 31, 2021, whichever is earlier. The Bureau does not project 
EBB Program funds will be fully expended by December, 31, 2021,

[[Page 74038]]

and therefore, for the purposes of this rulemaking, the Bureau 
considers December 31, 2021 to be the effective date of the Affordable 
Connectivity Program and the date on which the EBB Program ceases. The 
Bureau requests that stakeholders include in their comments how the 
changes to program eligibility and benefit amount impact the providers, 
consumer groups, governmental agencies and others as they prepare to 
support outreach for and enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program. The Bureau also urges commenters to suggest ways in which the 
Commission could facilitate these program changes so as to minimize any 
potentially disruptive impacts on low-income consumers.
    4. Pursuant to the Infrastructure Act, the amendments removing and 
adding certain qualifying eligibility programs, changing the benefit 
level, and making other modifications to the EBB Program requirements 
are ``delayed amendments'' that do not take effect immediately. The 
Infrastructure Act also provides for a 60-day transition period for 
``households that qualified'' for the EBB Program before the effective 
date that would otherwise see a reduction in their benefit as a result 
of the changes made through the delayed amendments. Accordingly, the 
60-day transition period for the Affordable Connectivity Program will 
start on December 31, 2021 for all households enrolled in the EBB 
Program before the effective date. During the transition period, 
households currently enrolled in the EBB Program will continue to 
receive the same benefit level they are receiving as of the effective 
date, thereby ensuring a seamless migration for all EBB Program 
households to the Affordable Connectivity Program. Moreover, the 
Affordable Connectivity Program will also begin to accept enrollments 
on the effective date. To ensure an orderly transition, the Bureau will 
provide additional guidance to participating providers, households, 
outreach partners, and other stakeholders concerning the end of the EBB 
Program, the 60-day transition period, the Affordable Connectivity 
Program requirements, and any other guidance necessary for enrollment 
of households in the Affordable Connectivity Program.

II. Discussion

    5. The Infrastructure Act does not alter the definition of 
participating provider or the framework through which providers may 
seek to participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program. Like 
participation in the EBB Program, provider participation in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program is voluntary. For both the Affordable 
Connectivity and EBB Programs, a ``participating provider'' is defined 
as a broadband provider that is either designated as an eligible 
telecommunications carrier (ETC) or a provider that seeks approval from 
the Commission to participate in the program. To participate in the EBB 
Program, ETCs and their affiliates in the states or territories where 
the ETC is designated were required to file the appropriate information 
with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) and did not 
need to seek approval from the Commission in those states. All other 
broadband providers needed to seek approval from the Commission to 
participate in the EBB Program.
    6. Providers that have not been designated as ETCs by the states or 
the Commission were required, in order to participate in the EBB 
Program, to file an application with the Commission that meets the 
program requirements and must be approved by the Commission. The 
Infrastructure Act leaves these requirements unchanged for providers 
seeking to participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program. 
Moreover, the Infrastructure Act does not modify or eliminate the 
requirement that the Commission ``automatically approve as a 
participating provider a broadband provider that has an established 
program as of April 1, 2020, that is widely available and offers 
internet service offerings to eligible households and maintains 
verification processes that are sufficient to avoid fraud, waste, and 
abuse.''
    7. The Commission established an expedited and automatic approval 
process in the EBB Program. The Bureau proposes that all existing EBB 
Program providers, even those that lack ETC designations or are not 
affiliated with an ETC, would not need to file or resubmit a completely 
new application to participate in the ACP prior to resubmitting their 
ACP election notice to USAC. Only a provider that did not participate 
in the EBB Program and is not an existing ETC or affiliated with an ETC 
would need to file an entirely new FCC approval application. The Bureau 
seeks comment on this proposal.
    8. As noted in this document, the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
also required that the Commission ``automatically approve as a 
participating provider any broadband provider that has an established 
program as of April 1, 2020 that is widely available and offers 
internet service offerings to eligible households and maintains 
verification processes that are sufficient to avoid fraud, waste, and 
abuse.'' In the EBB Program, the Commission implemented this statutory 
obligation by allowing service providers to file ``automatic 
applications'' where the provider's application would be reviewed on a 
priority basis if it established it had a pre-existing program as of 
April 1, 2020 that offered discounted service for certain eligible 
households. In defining what constitutes an ``established program'' the 
Commission adopted a ``broad interpretation,'' finding that ``any 
eligible broadband provider that maintains an existing program that was 
made available by April 1, 2020 to subscribers meeting at least one of 
the criteria in the Consolidated Appropriations Act's definition of an 
eligible household'' meets the requirements of an established program. 
The Commission explained that the principal consideration in 
determining what constitutes an ``established program'' for automatic 
approval is whether EBB eligible subscribers would have received a 
financial benefit through either reduced rates or rate forbearance. 
Further, a provider must also show its program is ``widely 
established'' by demonstrating the program is offered to subscribers in 
a substantial portion of the provider's service area in the 
jurisdiction for which it is seeking approval. The established program 
must have been available by April 1, 2020 to subscribers meeting at 
least one of the criteria in the definition of an EBB Program eligible 
household. Specifically, providers offering broadband households 
discounted rates based on criteria such as low-income status, loss of 
income, participation in certain federal, state, or local assistance 
programs, or other means-tested eligibility criteria qualify for this 
automatic approval process. Additionally, the Commission made eligible 
for automatic approval providers that made commitments to keep low-
income subscribers connected during the pandemic and offered widely 
available bill forbearance or forgiveness programs beginning no later 
than April 1, 2020 and continuing through the end of the EBB Program. 
The Bureau proposes to retain the process developed for review and 
approval of automatic applications for such non-ETC providers, and the 
Bureau seeks comment on that proposal.
    9. The Infrastructure Act makes several changes to the ways 
households can qualify for the Affordable Connectivity Program. In the 
EBB Program, a household may qualify if it meets the requirements of a 
provider's existing low-income or COVID-19 program, subject to the 
requirements of

[[Page 74039]]

the provider's approved verification process. However, under the 
Affordable Connectivity Program, eligibility for a provider's COVID-19 
program no longer qualifies a household to receive ACP benefits. 
Additionally, the Infrastructure Act removes eligibility for households 
that qualified based on having experienced a substantial loss of income 
since February 29, 2020. Given these changes, the Bureau seeks comment 
on how the Commission should revise the process for determining whether 
a provider's ``established program'' qualifies it for automatic 
approval to become a participating provider in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. In keeping with the directive of Congress, the 
Bureau proposes to modify the requirements of what constitutes an 
``established program'' to reflect the removal of COVID-19-specific 
response programs and other short-term bill forbearance or forgiveness 
programs. Accordingly, a provider seeking to participate in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program that did not participate in the EBB 
Program or is otherwise not an ETC or affiliated with an ETC can 
demonstrate an ``established program'' for automatic approval by 
submitting information demonstrating that it maintains an existing low-
income program that was made available by April 1, 2020 to subscribers 
meeting at least one of the criteria in the revised definition of an 
eligible household. The Bureau proposes, consistent with the 
Infrastructure Act's modifications to the statute, that to qualify for 
automatic approval, providers must demonstrate that they are offering 
broadband subscribers discounted rates based on criteria such as low 
income, participation in federal, state, or local assistance programs, 
or other means-tested eligibility criteria, and must also demonstrate 
the pre-existing verification process used for this existing program.
    10. The Bureau next proposes that the Commission should delegate to 
them the authority to review and approve or deny service provider 
applications consistent with the authority it possessed for the EBB 
Program. The Bureau proposes to require only providers that did not 
participate in the EBB Program to seek Commission approval prior to 
submitting to USAC the ACP election notices. The Bureau also proposes 
that applications should be reviewed on a rolling basis throughout the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. The Bureau seeks comment on these 
proposals. What efficiencies should the Commission consider to manage 
the speedy and thorough review of provider applications? Once the 
Commission has approved (or denied) an application, how should it 
inform the applicant of that determination? The Bureau seeks comment 
generally on using the application and review processes from the EBB 
Program in the Affordable Connectivity Program, and any modifications 
the Commission should consider for the implementation of the Affordable 
Connectivity Program.
    11. The Bureau seeks comment on any additional changes that should 
be made to the provider approval process given the anticipated longer 
timeframe of the Affordable Connectivity Program. For instance, what 
requirements for notice and approval should the Commission impose with 
respect to transactions between participating providers? Historically, 
transactions that alter the ownership interests of ETCs participating 
in the High Cost and Lifeline programs must receive approval from the 
Bureau under its license transfer, Universal Service Fund and 
compliance plan authorities. Should the Commission impose a similar 
requirement for ACP providers? Should the Commission instead only 
require the providers to maintain up-to-date ownership information in 
its election notice filed with USAC? The Bureau also recognizes that 
providers are not required to participate in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program and it anticipates that some providers may wish to 
voluntarily relinquish their eligibility. Should the Commission adopt a 
formal process providers must follow to relinquish ACP eligibility? 
Must the Commission act on such notice before a provider can withdraw 
from the Affordable Connectivity Program? The Bureau seeks comment on a 
process through which ACP providers can cease providing service 
supported by the program while also ensuring that their subscribers are 
provided adequate notice and given the opportunity to transfer their 
benefit to another service provider.
    12. In the EBB Program, the Commission required all participating 
providers to file an election notice with USAC to participate. The 
Commission also established an expedited process where existing ETCs 
and other approved providers could gain access to the necessary USAC 
systems being used to administer the EBB Program. The EBB provider 
election notice includes: (1) The states in which the provider plans to 
participate in the EBB Program; (2) a statement that, in each such 
state, the provider was a ``broadband provider'' as of December 1, 
2020; (3) a list of states where the provider is an existing ETC, if 
any; (4) a list of states where the provider received FCC approval, 
whether automatic or expedited, to participate, if any; (5) whether the 
provider intends to distribute connected devices under the EBB Program; 
(6) a description of the internet service offerings for which the 
provider plans to seek reimbursement from the EBB Program in each 
state; (7) documentation demonstrating the standard rates for those 
services; and (8) any other administrative information necessary for 
USAC to establish participating providers in the EBB Program. Should 
the Commission require all providers to submit a new election notice 
for the Affordable Connectivity Program? By doing so, the Commission 
would not only give providers an opportunity to refresh the information 
they initially provided for the EBB Program, but would also ensure that 
providers are committed to participating in this new program and 
understand the program requirements. Alternatively, the Bureau seeks 
comment on whether the Commission should require only providers that 
have not certified any claims for the EBB Program to submit an election 
notice for the Affordable Connectivity Program. Would this alternative 
approach be sufficient to ensure that EBB Program providers are 
committed to participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program and are 
aware of the new program requirements? If the Commission does not 
require all EBB Program providers to submit new election notices in 
order to participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program, should the 
Commission require those providers to update their election notices to 
reflect new services and connected devices to be offered in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program? The Bureau also seeks comment on the 
EBB Program election notice form and process administered by USAC and 
what modifications would be appropriate for the Affordable Connectivity 
Program.
    13. The Infrastructure Act removes the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act requirement that the EBB Program supported service must have been 
offered ``in the same manner, and on the same terms, as described in 
any of such provider's offerings for broadband internet access service 
to such household, as on December 1, 2020.'' Moreover, the 
Infrastructure Act also imposes a new requirement that providers 
``shall allow an eligible household to apply the affordable 
connectivity benefit to any internet service offering of the 
participating provider, at the same rates and terms available to 
households that are not eligible households.'' Given these

[[Page 74040]]

changes, the Bureau seeks comment on the information and the supporting 
documentation that should be collected by USAC as part of the election 
process to help guard against waste, fraud, and abuse, and to ensure 
that the provider offers supported service through the Affordable 
Connectivity Program at the same terms available to households not 
eligible for the program. For instance, should the Commission require a 
demonstration that the service offering was generally available for a 
specific period of time prior to the submission of the election notice 
or the launch of the Affordable Connectivity Program? If so, what 
should that period of time be? Would such a requirement be consistent 
with the Infrastructure Act's requirement that eligible households be 
allowed to apply the benefit to any internet service offering of the 
provider? How should promotional and contract rates be evaluated for 
purposes of determining whether the supported service is offered on the 
same terms as those offered to non-eligible households? The Bureau also 
seeks comment on the appropriate geographic area for evaluating whether 
the service is offered at the same rates and terms as those offered to 
non-eligible households. Can a provider's rates in one geographic area 
be used as a reference for comparable rates for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program in another area? How large of a geographic area 
should the Commission use as a reference for comparing rates? How 
should rates in areas where a provider recently expanded service be 
considered?
    14. EBB Program election notices are also required to include 
information about the connected devices offered by the provider. With 
respect to the connected devices providers seek to offer through the 
Affordable Connectivity Program, what information should the Commission 
require in the election notice? Should providers be required to submit 
documentation on the retail rate of the device, including, but not 
limited to, the make, model, and specifications of the device, and the 
cost of the device to the provider? Currently, in the EBB Program, 
providers only need to include documentation detailing the equipment, 
rates, applicable costs of the laptop, desktop or tablet and provide 
summary information regarding the devices, rates, and costs. The Bureau 
seeks comment on requiring connected device specifications and the cost 
of the device in the ACP election notice to help USAC and the 
Commission determine whether the reimbursement claims for the device 
are compliant with the Commission's rules and to help guard against 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
    15. The Bureau also proposes that with their election notices 
providers submit to USAC the lists of ZIP codes where they will offer 
the supported services to be used to populate the Companies Near Me 
tool on USAC's website without delay. The Companies Near Me tool allows 
consumers to find a Lifeline or EBB Program provider in their area. The 
Bureau seeks comment on this proposal and other information the 
election notice should collect.
    16. As in the EBB Program, the Bureau proposes to accept election 
notices on a rolling basis throughout the Affordable Connectivity 
Program. Should the Commission adopt a specific timeframe for acting on 
provider elections? How should the timeframe take into account the need 
for USAC simultaneously to administer the EBB Program or the Affordable 
Connectivity Program, and also process election notices? Once USAC has 
reviewed an election notice and verified that the broadband provider is 
eligible to participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program, how 
should it inform applicants of that determination? The Bureau also seek 
comments on when and under what circumstances USAC should reject an 
election notice. Can USAC take into account past complaints, 
enforcement actions, fraud convictions, or audit findings as bases for 
rejecting a provider's election for the Affordable Connectivity 
Program? Further, if an applicant fails to provide with its election 
notice or application the information that may be required under the 
Commission's rules, should that be a basis for rejecting or delisting 
that applicant? Are there other reasons that would justify rejection? 
Because the Infrastructure Act eliminated the EBB Program requirement 
that participating providers must have offered a broadband service as 
of December 1, 2020 in order for that service to qualify for EBB 
Program support, the Bureau anticipates the Affordable Connectivity 
Program will be open to a broader range of providers. The Bureau seeks 
comment on what information should be collected from providers to 
ensure that they are legitimate broadband providers committed to 
adhering to the ACP rules and are capable of providing broadband 
service to eligible households. For example, should the Commission 
require providers to certify that they would be able to promptly 
provide service in an area if a subscriber requested it? Should the 
Commission require providers to certify that they will respond to 
consumer complaints filed using the dedicated ACP complaint process 
within 30 days?
    17. Participating providers necessarily will have to interact with 
both the Commission and USAC. The Bureau proposes that, as with the EBB 
Program election process, a broadband provider will be required to have 
already registered with the Commission and USAC and to have received 
both an FCC Registration Number (FRN) and Service Provider 
Identification Number, if applicable, before filing an election notice. 
The Bureau proposes to retain for the Affordable Connectivity Program 
the information requested on the EBB Program election form. This 
includes a requirement that providers include their data universal 
numbering service (DUNS) and employer identification numbers (EIN) on 
the election form. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal and asks 
what other financial information from providers it should collect on 
the election notice to ease the administration of the program. For 
instance, requiring each participating provider to file a separate 
election notice rather than allowing affiliated providers the ability 
to file a joint election notice would ease the processing of payments 
to each provider in the Affordable Connectivity Program. The Bureau 
thus proposes requiring each participating provider to file an election 
notice separately, that would include the FRN, EIN, and DUNS for the 
entity receiving payment. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal. 
The Bureau also seeks comment on any burdens related to the election 
notice process, particularly for small providers, and possible ways to 
alleviate these burdens.
    18. The Infrastructure Act leaves unchanged the requirement that 
the Commission ``expedite the ability of all participating providers to 
access the National Verifier and the National Lifeline Accountability 
Database (NLAD) for the purposes of determining whether a household is 
an eligible household.'' The Bureau proposes that all participating 
providers be required to have their agents and other enrollment 
representatives registered with the Representative Accountability 
Database (RAD), as is currently required for the Lifeline and EBB 
Programs as a way to minimize waste, fraud, and abuse. As it does in 
the Lifeline program, should the Commission prohibit participating ACP 
providers from offering or providing to their enrollment 
representatives or their direct supervisors any commission compensation 
that is based on the number of consumers who apply for or are enrolled 
in the ACP with that provider? In the EBB Program Order, 86

[[Page 74041]]

FR 19532, April 13, 2021, the Commission declined to apply this 
prohibition to the EBB Program ``to avoid discouraging provider 
participation and diminishing consumer choice in the [EBB] Program.'' 
Should the longer-term nature of the Affordable Connectivity Program 
change the Commission's assessment of whether these concerns outweigh 
the possible benefits of the prohibition in guarding against waste, 
fraud, and abuse? What other actions should the Commission consider to 
protect the Affordable Connectivity Program and enrolling households 
from waste, fraud and abuse caused by rogue agents of providers?
    19. To access the databases, Affordable Connectivity Program 
providers will be required to accept USAC's OnePortal Terms and 
Conditions, agreeing that their access is conditioned on their 
compliance with federal laws regarding privacy, data security, and 
breach notification. The Bureau proposes that once USAC has verified a 
broadband provider's election notice, it should expeditiously process 
and prioritize registrations from such providers and take any other 
steps needed to facilitate access by participating providers to these 
databases. For providers with an election notice that is verified for 
the Affordable Connectivity Program, but not for the EBB Program, 
should the Commission direct USAC to limit the provider's access to 
USAC systems before the Affordable Connectivity Program is launched? 
The Bureau seeks comment on ways to help providers, especially those 
who are new to USAC systems, gain access to and familiarity with the 
systems they need to enroll households in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program.
    20. The Bureau proposes that the Commission formalize a process for 
limiting provider access to USAC systems or removing participating 
providers from the Affordable Connectivity Program in situations where 
there are concerns of waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, should USAC 
remove providers if there is a trend of troubling complaints that 
suggest that the provider is not offering eligible households broadband 
service or connected devices, is failing to properly enroll subscribers 
pursuant to ACP rules, is not passing through the discounts to 
subscribers, is providing devices that do not provide the connectivity 
that was promised or that consumers require, or is otherwise acting in 
a way that suggests failures to comply with the Affordable Connectivity 
Program rules? Should the Commission promulgate rules providing for 
spot checks by USAC or the Commission to monitor provider compliance? 
Should the Commission supplement its document retention rules to 
facilitate such monitoring? Should the Commission provide for a 
mechanism to promptly delist or suspend providers or their agents where 
there is sufficient evidence they have (1) submitted material, false 
information to USAC or the Commission, (2) failed to submit information 
required by the approval or election process, or (3) otherwise failed 
to comply with ACP program rules? The Bureau seeks comment on this 
proposal and request comments on the tools USAC and the Commission have 
available or should have available to lock out and/or remove providers 
from the Affordable Connectivity Program.
    21. The Consolidated Appropriations Act allows a participating 
provider to ``rely upon an alternative verification process of the 
participating provider,'' to determine household eligibility and enroll 
households in the EBB program, subject to certain conditions. Pursuant 
to the process set out by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, the 
``participating provider submits information as required by the 
Commission regarding the alternative verification process prior to 
seeking reimbursement,'' and the Commission has seven days after 
receipt of the information to notify the participating provider if its 
``alternative verification process will be sufficient to avoid waste, 
fraud, and abuse.'' This approval allows participating providers to 
verify all household eligibility criteria through their own eligibility 
verification process in addition to, or instead of, using the National 
Verifier. The Infrastructure Act does not modify the requirement that a 
provider seeking automatic approval must have eligibility 
``verification processes that are sufficient to avoid fraud, waste, and 
abuse.'' However, by eliminating a provider's existing COVID-19 program 
as a basis for inclusion, the Infrastructure Act does modify the types 
of acceptable ``existing programs'' that a provider's alternative 
verification process would incorporate to determine a household's 
eligibility in the Affordable Connectivity Program. The Bureau seeks 
comment on the impact of this change on the Commission's consideration 
of alternative verification process requirements.
    22. The Commission required alternative verification processes for 
the EBB Program to be at least as stringent as methods used by the 
National Verifier. To meet this standard, EBB participating providers 
that use alternative verification processes need to collect a 
prospective subscriber's: (1) Full name, (2) phone number, (3) date of 
birth, (4) email address, (5) home and mailing addresses, (6) name and 
date of birth of the benefit qualifying person if different than 
applicant, (7) basis for inclusion in program (e.g., SNAP, SSI, 
Medicaid, school lunch, Pell Grant, income, provider's existing 
program, etc.) and documentation supporting verification of 
eligibility, and (8) certifications from the household that the 
information included in the application is true. The provider is 
required to describe the processes it (or a third-party) uses to verify 
the required information, and is required to explain why the 
alternative process would be sufficient to avoid waste, fraud, and 
abuse. The provider is also required to explain how it trains its 
employees and agents to prevent ineligible enrollments, including 
enrollments based on fabricated documents. If the alternative 
verification process fails to include any of the required information, 
the provider is required to explain why such information was not 
necessary to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Finally, if a provider 
without an established low-income or COVID-19 program seeks approval of 
an alternative verification process, it is required to explain why it 
proposes to use an alternative verification process instead of the 
National Verifier eligibility determinations. The Bureau proposes to 
require the same information for any provider seeking approval for an 
alternative verification process in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program, and it seeks comment on this proposal.
    23. The Bureau proposes that providers with approved EBB Program 
alternative verification processes can continue to use those processes 
when enrolling households in the Affordable Connectivity Program in a 
manner consistent with the Affordable Connectivity Program's revised 
eligibility criteria. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal and any 
changes that would be necessary to update the alternative verification 
process application to incorporate these statutory changes for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. The Infrastructure Act continues to 
allow providers to use their alternative verification processes based 
on the provider's eligibility requirements for its existing low-income 
program and does not require alternative verification processes to 
verify all of the statutory household eligibility bases for inclusion 
in the Affordable Connectivity Program. Additionally, the 
Infrastructure Act

[[Page 74042]]

does not modify the requirement that an alternative verification 
process must be sufficient to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse, as 
required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act. Thus, the Bureau 
proposes that providers with existing approved alternative verification 
processes may approve households for the Affordable Connectivity 
Program if the household meets the criteria for the provider's existing 
low-income program or the statutory eligibility requirements, and these 
providers need not seek new Commission approval for their alternative 
verification processes. However, the Bureau also proposes that 
providers with approved alternative verification processes must seek 
new Commission approval to verify any eligibility criteria not 
originally contained in prior approved processes. For example, a 
provider will need to seek approval from the Commission if it intends 
to verify in its alternative verification process household 
participation in the Special Supplemental Nutritional Program for 
Woman, Infants and Children (WIC) if the provider's approved processes 
do not specify WIC or if WIC is not a qualifying program for the 
provider's own low-income program. The Bureau seeks comment on this 
approach.
    24. The household eligibility determinations made by the National 
Verifier represent a strong waste, fraud, and abuse prevention tool. 
The importance of the independent household eligibility reviews and 
verification conducted by the National Verifier was recognized by 
Congress, and the Commission has also stated that the National Verifier 
is an effective tool and important protection against waste, fraud, and 
abuse. During the EBB Program, the periodic updates to the National 
Verifier to improve the EBB household verification process proved to be 
an effective and robust tool for providers and households to 
efficiently determine household eligibility. In fact, many providers 
with approved alternative verification processes choose to use the 
National Verifier process in addition to or in lieu of their own 
alternative processes. In light of the reliance on the National 
Verifier by many providers with an alternative verification process in 
the EBB Program and the robust verification tools offered by the 
National Verifier, the Bureau proposes to approve alternative 
verification process applications only from providers with existing 
low-income programs and where the provider's existing low-income 
program requires the provider to use an alternative verification 
process and not the National Verifier. Accordingly, providers with 
existing programs that have an established eligibility approval process 
that would be incompatible with the National Verifier or other 
justification that prevents the provider's eligibility process from 
using the National Verifier would be able to seek an alternative 
verification process. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
    25. During the EBB Program, some providers without an established 
low-income program sought approval of an alternative verification 
process even where the providers had already been designated as ETCs, 
had been providing Lifeline service for years, and had a history of 
using the National Verifier and other USAC systems to determine 
eligibility for Lifeline. These providers typically claimed they needed 
an alternative verification process for efficiency reasons or 
administrative ease, but their requests for approval did not address 
the increased risk of waste, fraud, and abuse inherent in not using the 
National Verifier. Moreover, these alternative verification processes 
were untested and seemingly created only for the purpose of the EBB 
Program application. The Bureau is concerned that in such cases, the 
provider may not have the appropriate financial incentives to make 
accurate eligibility determinations, because the Emergency Broadband 
Connectivity Fund, and not the provider itself, is subsidizing the 
discounted service. In contrast, a provider who is enrolling households 
in its own low-income program has an adequate financial incentive to 
make accurate eligibility determinations because the process was 
developed to support an existing program through which the provider had 
committed to subsidize the discounted service offered to eligible 
households.
    26. Accurately determining household eligibility is the principal 
consideration for the National Verifier and its independent reviews. 
The accuracy of the eligibility decision is the principal tool in 
preventing improper payments and other waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
EBB Program and will continue to be in the successor Affordable 
Connectivity Program. A proposal to use an alternative verification 
process that does not offer an explanation for why the alternative 
process is necessary when the provider could easily use the National 
Verifier fails to make the statutorily required showing that the 
process will be ``sufficient to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse.'' 
Further, the National Verifier maintains a number of database 
connections that produce automatic eligibility approvals that 
individual providers would have to conduct through a manual application 
review process. All of these considerations weigh in favor of limiting 
the use of alternative verification processes to providers that 
maintain an existing verification process used for its own low-income 
program or other purpose unrelated to the EBB Program, Affordable 
Connectivity Program, or similar federal assistance program. The Bureau 
seeks comment on its proposal and the Commission's authority to limit 
approvals of an alternative verification process to such providers.
    27. The Affordable Connectivity Program will provide eligible 
households a discount on broadband internet access service and a 
connected device. Consistent with the EBB Program requirements, the 
Bureau interprets the Infrastructure Act to limit the ACP benefit to 
one-per-household for both the monthly benefit and the one-time 
connected device reimbursement. In administering the EBB Program, the 
Commission used the definition of ``household'' under the Lifeline 
rules and did not limit the number of participating households that 
could be located at a particular address. The Bureau proposes to apply 
this same definition and approach to the Affordable Connectivity 
Program. Consistent with the approach in the EBB Program, the Bureau 
also proposes (1) to make available a Household Worksheet (with 
necessary modifications specific to the Affordable Connectivity 
Program) to help a household determine whether it is an independent 
economic household from other existing ACP subscribers at the same 
address, and (2) to require ACP providers using their own approved 
alternative verification processes to include measures to confirm that 
a household is not receiving more than one ACP benefit. The Bureau 
seeks comment on these proposals. Are any changes to the administration 
of the one-per-household requirement warranted for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program? For purposes of individual and household 
duplicate checks, should the Commission make clear that service 
providers are also required to check their internal records?
    28. The Bureau next seeks comment on implementing the eligibility 
criteria for the Affordable Connectivity Program. A household may 
qualify for the Affordable Connectivity Program if at least one member 
of the household: (1) Meets the qualifications for participation in the 
Lifeline program (with the modification that the qualifying household 
income threshold is at or below 200 percent of the Federal

[[Page 74043]]

Poverty Guidelines for a household of that size); (2) has been approved 
to receive school lunch benefits under the free and reduced price lunch 
program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, or the 
school breakfast program under section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 
1966; (3) has received a Federal Pell Grant under section 401 of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 in the current award year; (4) meets the 
eligibility criteria for a participating provider's existing low-income 
program, subject to approval by the Commission and any other 
requirements deemed by the Commission to be necessary in the public 
interest; or (5) receives assistance through the WIC Program, 
established by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 
1786). In addition to adding WIC as a qualifying program for ACP, 
Congress in the Infrastructure Act raised the maximum income for 
qualifying based on household income for purposes of the ACP from ``135 
percent'' to ``200 percent'' of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for a 
household of that size, and eliminated as qualifying criteria 
substantial loss of income since February 29, 2020 and participation in 
a provider's COVID-19 Program. Commission rules governing the 
Affordable Connectivity Program will need to reflect these eligibility 
changes, and the National Verifier will require modifications to 
implement them.
    29. The Bureau seeks comment on the qualifying benefit programs for 
the Affordable Connectivity Program. In the EBB Program Order, the 
Commission determined that households with students enrolled in schools 
or school districts participating in the Community Eligibility 
Provision (CEP) are eligible for the EBB Program regardless of whether 
anyone in the household applied for school lunch or breakfast 
assistance individually. The Bureau seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should take the same approach for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. Should the Commission revisit in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program its decision to allow EBB Program eligibility 
based only on attendance at a CEP school if the household would not 
otherwise qualify for the school lunch and breakfast program? Given 
that the Affordable Connectivity Program is not an emergency, temporary 
program like the EBB Program, and will have a longer duration than the 
EBB Program, is there still a compelling reason to allow CEP student 
eligibility? In a long-term program, how does the Commission assess the 
risk of allowing households that are not otherwise eligible for the 
school lunch and breakfast program to receive the ACP benefit? Are 
there alternatives that the Commission should consider to ensure that 
households seeking to qualify based on participation in the CEP would 
otherwise qualify for the school lunch and breakfast program?
    30. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether and how the free and 
reduced price school lunch and breakfast program eligibility criteria 
apply where schools elect administrative provisions under the National 
School Lunch Act that have similar elements as the CEP. For example, 
many students receive meals from schools that elect to participate in 
alternative United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) mechanisms 
without annual eligibility determinations that, like the CEP, may 
result in students receiving free school breakfast or lunch even though 
the student did not individually apply for assistance. Would expanding 
the eligibility of the Affordable Connectivity Program to include 
students attending Provision 2 and Provision 3 schools broaden 
participation in the Affordable Connectivity Program to low-income 
households the Infrastructure Act intends to benefit? Given that the 
Affordable Connectivity Program is not an emergency program, is the 
risk of allowing households to qualify under these provisions, even if 
the household would not otherwise qualify for the school breakfast and 
lunch program, justified? Should the Commission only permit households 
to enroll in the Affordable Connectivity Program based on these 
provisions if the household would individually qualify for the school 
lunch and breakfast program, even if the household is not required to 
submit an annual application? While Provisions 2 and 3 require schools 
to provide school meals at no charge to all participating students, 
schools with high rates of poverty are most likely to use these 
provisions. With respect to the possible inclusion of Provisions 2 and 
3, do the existing information collection and documentation 
requirements for the school lunch and breakfast program already cover 
the types of documentation that would be sufficient for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program to demonstrate participation in Provision 2 or 3, 
or should the Commission revise its documentation requirements to 
accommodate their inclusion? Are there databases that identify which 
schools use Provisions 2 or 3? Is there a potential for waste, fraud, 
and abuse associated with any documentation for Provisions 2 or 3 that 
the Commission should not rely on for purposes of demonstrating 
eligibility for the Affordable Connectivity Program?
    31. For households seeking to qualify for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program based on a current student's participation in a 
school lunch or breakfast program, the Bureau proposes allowing 
households to qualify based on documentation from the current school 
year in which they submit their ACP application or the school year 
immediately preceding their ACP application submissions. This approach 
would ensure that households are not precluded from participation in 
the Affordable Connectivity Program due to school closures or school 
participation in non-annual eligibility determination processes. The 
Bureau seeks comment on this idea.
    32. Pursuant to the statute, a household with a student who 
receives free or reduced-price school lunch or breakfast can qualify 
for the Affordable Connectivity Program through the National Verifier, 
a service provider's alternative verification process, or school-based 
eligibility verification. Households that seek to enroll in the EBB 
Program via the National Verifier based on participation in a school 
lunch or breakfast program at a non-CEP school are required to provide 
specific information and documentation at the time of enrollment, 
including the name of the consumer or benefit qualified person, 
qualifying program, the name of the school or school district that 
issued the documentation, issue date of the documentation (subject to 
the applicable time limitations) that aligns with the benefit period, 
and a letter from the school or school district confirming that a 
member of the household is approved to participate in the school or 
lunch or breakfast program during the allowed time period. Service 
providers using an approved alternative verification process are 
subject to strict subscriber information collection and document 
retention requirements. The Bureau proposes that the Commission extend 
these same requirements to the Affordable Connectivity Program, with 
modifications to the acceptable documentation dates to reflect the 
expected longer duration of the Affordable Connectivity Program. The 
Bureau seeks comment on this proposal. For National Verifier 
enrollments, if the benefit qualifying person attends a school that 
participates in the CEP, the household selects the school during the 
application process. Are there any modifications that the Bureau should 
consider to guard against potential, waste, fraud and abuse where 
households seek to enroll through the

[[Page 74044]]

National Verifier based on participation in the CEP? For example, 
should the household be required to provide documentation that the 
benefit qualifying person attends the school that participates in the 
CEP?
    33. For the EBB Program, where a service provider relies on a 
school to verify student eligibility for the school lunch or breakfast 
program, the service provider must certify that it relied on school-
provided information and must retain documentation of (1) the school 
providing the information, (2) the program that the school participates 
in, (3) the household that qualifies (and qualifying student) and (4) 
the program the household participates in. Where school-based 
eligibility verification is used, does the information that providers 
are required to provide to the NLAD and related document retention 
requirements sufficiently guard against waste, fraud and abuse? If not, 
what additional information should be transmitted to the NLAD or what 
additional documentation should the Commission require service 
providers to retain where school-based eligibility verifications are 
used? Is there any additional information that the Commission should 
require service providers or households to provide at the time of 
enrollment where a household seeks to enroll based on participation in 
the school lunch or breakfast program? Should the Commission require 
service providers to retain any additional documentation of a specific 
household's ACP eligibility through participation in a school lunch or 
breakfast program? Should the Commission make any other changes to the 
required documentation for any other qualifying programs where 
household eligibility is verified through manual reviews in the 
National Verifier?
    34. The Infrastructure Act permits participating providers to use 
the same three methods of verifying household eligibility for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program that are currently used for the EBB 
Program: (1) Use of the National Verifier and the NLAD; (2) reliance on 
the participating provider's alternative verification process, subject 
to certain conditions; and (3) reliance on a school to verify 
eligibility under the free and reduced price school lunch or school 
breakfast program. For the Affordable Connectivity Program, the Bureau 
proposes using the same processes used in the EBB Program for tracking 
the eligibility of households and verifying household eligibility, with 
necessary modifications to conform to the ACP requirements, including 
changed eligibility criteria. To guard against duplicative support, the 
Bureau proposes requiring all participating providers to track 
enrollments of eligible households in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program in the NLAD, including households whose eligibility is verified 
through a permitted alternative verification process or school-based 
verification, and to update subscriber information in the NLAD within 
10 business days of receiving the changed information. The Bureau seeks 
comment on this proposal.
    35. The Commission's EBB Program rules prohibit participating 
providers from enrolling or claiming support for any prospective 
subscriber if USAC cannot verify the subscriber's status as alive, 
unless the subscriber produces documentation to the National Verifier 
to demonstrate his or her identity and status as alive. The Bureau 
proposes to apply the same requirements to the Affordable Connectivity 
Program, and it seeks comment on that proposal. To promote program 
integrity, the Bureau also proposes directing USAC to ensure through 
its program integrity reviews that households whose eligibility is 
verified through an alternative verification process or other non-
National Verifier process comply with this requirement.
    36. If a household's eligibility cannot be verified through the 
National Verifier's automated databases, the Bureau proposes applying 
the same documentation requirements used for the EBB Program to the 
qualifying programs for the Affordable Connectivity Program, to the 
extent consistent with its proposals in this Public Notice. As noted in 
this document, the Infrastructure Act added WIC as a qualifying program 
for the ACP. If WIC participation cannot be validated through an 
automated database connection at launch of the Affordable Connectivity 
Program, what documentation should the Commission require as the Bureau 
works to establish an automated connection capable of qualifying WIC 
participants? For example, do WIC participants receive benefit award 
letters, approval letters, statements of benefits, or benefit 
verification letters? Is there any documentation the Bureau should not 
permit to verify WIC participation for program integrity reasons? How 
should the Bureau consider WIC Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards? 
Do these cards contain sufficient identifying information that would 
prevent someone who is not enrolled in WIC from using the card to 
support their enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity Program? In 
contrast to the other benefit qualifying programs, WIC is designed to 
provide benefits over a shorter time period, and eligibility is based 
on income and specific eligibility categories for women, infants and 
children. For WIC, the benefit period typically lasts six months to one 
year, after which time the participant must renew their eligibility to 
continue receiving WIC benefits. What, if any, impact should this have 
on administering WIC as a qualifying program for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program? Is the annual recertification requirement that 
the Bureau proposes below sufficient for households that qualify for 
the Affordable Connectivity Program based on participation in WIC, 
given the shorter-term benefit period in the program? Are there any 
other considerations in administering WIC as a qualifying program?
    37. Enrollment. Consistent with Lifeline and the EBB Program, the 
Bureau proposes that the Commission require, for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program, the program-wide use of NLAD as a tool for 
enrollment, as well as reimbursement calculations and duplicate checks 
in all states, territories, and the District of Columbia, regardless of 
a state's NLAD opt-out status in the Lifeline program. The Bureau seeks 
comment on this approach. The Bureau proposes that providers be 
required to transmit to NLAD information about the subscriber, service, 
connected device, the reliance on an AVP or school eligibility 
determination to verify a subscriber's eligibility, and whether the 
household lives on Tribal lands or high cost areas that are eligible 
for the enhanced support of up to $75 a month for ACP-supported 
service. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal and the other 
information that should be submitted to NLAD to assist in the 
administration of the Affordable Connectivity Program and to provide 
USAC and the Commission with information to support the providers' 
claims for reimbursement.
    38. Consistent with the EBB Program the Bureau proposes requiring 
prospective ACP subscribers who are not already enrolled in Lifeline to 
submit an application in order to enroll in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program. Households enrolled in the Lifeline program are automatically 
eligible for the Affordable Connectivity Program based on their 
Lifeline eligibility, and as with the EBB Program, the Bureau proposes 
not to require these households to submit new applications or new 
eligibility documentation to participate in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program, provided that the household opts in or affirmatively requests 
enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity Program and is already

[[Page 74045]]

enrolled in NLAD. That said, the Bureau proposes that existing Lifeline 
subscribers in the NLAD opt-out states of California, Oregon, and Texas 
should have the option to submit an application to the National 
Verifier for the Affordable Connectivity Program if they choose. 
Because state administrators or agencies in those states continue to 
verify household eligibility for Lifeline consumers, USAC generally 
does not have real-time data regarding subscriber Lifeline eligibility 
for purposes of automatic enrollment in the EBB Program like it does 
for Lifeline consumers whose eligibility is confirmed by the National 
Verifier. These three NLAD opt-out states have worked closely with USAC 
since the start of the EBB Program to streamline the EBB enrollment 
process for subscribers by increasing the frequency of eligibility 
listings to USAC on a weekly basis. As a result, service providers in 
the NLAD opt-out states are able to enroll existing Lifeline 
subscribers whose eligibility was verified by the state based on the 
most recent weekly update, rather than having to wait until the state's 
next monthly file is submitted to USAC. USAC and the Bureau will 
continue to work with the states to ensure that these weekly updates 
will continue for purposes of enrolling in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program existing Lifeline subscribers in California, Oregon, and Texas, 
although the National Verifier application will also be available as a 
way for Lifeline consumers in these states to verify their ACP 
eligibility. The Bureau seeks comment on whether USAC should make 
additional changes to this process to administer the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. Are there any other challenges with relying on 
NLAD data from opt-out states, and if so, how can those challenges be 
overcome to facilitate the administration of and enrollment in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program?
    39. As is permitted for the EBB Program, the Bureau proposes 
allowing households seeking to enroll in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program to verify their identity through the last four digits of their 
Social Security number or other approved identity documentation. The 
Bureau seeks feedback on the practice of allowing eligible consumers to 
verify their identity by submitting documentation rather than providing 
the last four digits of their Social Security number. Did this more 
flexible approach encourage participation by households that otherwise 
would not have completed an application for the EBB Program? If the 
Commission adopts this approach for the Affordable Connectivity 
Program, how can USAC improve the experience for applicants? Are there 
other sources, systems or databases the Bureau could rely upon to more 
quickly qualify households providing alternative documentation?
    40. Where participating providers rely on the National Verifier to 
enroll households in the Affordable Connectivity Program, the Bureau 
proposes requiring eligible households to interact directly with the 
National Verifier to apply for the Affordable Connectivity Program, as 
is currently required for the EBB Program and the Lifeline program. 
Consistent with the Lifeline program and the EBB Program, the Bureau 
proposes to provide access to an online portal and application form to 
apply for the Affordable Connectivity Program, and make available an 
eligibility check application programming interface (API) that allows 
providers to help consumers with the ACP application. The Bureau also 
proposes using the National Verifier automated database connections 
wherever possible to verify household eligibility for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program, and extending to the Affordable Connectivity 
Program the existing manual documentation review process used for the 
EBB Program (with necessary modifications to reflect the ACP 
eligibility criteria) where eligibility cannot be verified through a 
National Verifier automated database. The Bureau seeks comment on these 
proposals.
    41. The Infrastructure Act made several changes to the eligibility 
criteria for the Affordable Connectivity Program. As a result of these 
changes, the systems at USAC will require significant development to, 
among other capabilities, create a new application portal in the 
National Verifier and make changes in the NLAD to permit and track 
enrollments under these new qualifying programs. The Bureau seeks 
comment on ways to expedite the development and testing of the new 
application, and on any other suggestions for readying the relevant 
systems to accept enrollments starting on December 31, 2021, as 
permitted by the Infrastructure Act, for households that qualify for 
the Affordable Connectivity Program based on the changed eligibility 
criteria.
    42. De-enrollments. To guard against waste, fraud and abuse, the 
Bureau proposes to extend the de-enrollment requirements applicable to 
both the Lifeline and EBB Programs to the Affordable Connectivity 
Program, with any necessary modifications to conform to the eligibility 
criteria for the Affordable Connectivity Program. The Bureau similarly 
proposes to require participating providers to transmit the de-
enrollment information to the NLAD within one business day of de-
enrollment. Based on the Bureau's experience with the EBB Program, it 
believes it would be beneficial for USAC to continue to process de-
enrollment requests directly from subscribers and notify the 
subscriber's provider when those de-enrollments occur. The Bureau seeks 
comment on these proposals. To the extent technically feasible, should 
there be a consumer self-service option to terminate Affordable 
Connectivity Program service? Could service providers give consumers a 
self-service option to terminate Affordable Connectivity Program 
service through their systems?
    43. As with the Lifeline and EBB Programs, the Bureau also proposes 
to apply a usage requirement to the Affordable Connectivity Program. 
Where a household receives a service for which a fee is not assessed or 
collected, limiting reimbursement to households who are actually using 
a supported service is an important safeguard against waste, fraud, and 
abuse. The Bureau proposes applying the same usage definition for the 
Lifeline and EBB Programs to the Affordable Connectivity Program, and 
similarly propose to prohibit participating providers from claiming 
Affordable Connectivity Program reimbursement for households that are 
not actually using a service for which a fee is not assessed or 
collected. Is the existing definition of usage adequate and does it 
include sufficient methods by which subscribers receiving fixed 
broadband service could demonstrate usage? Should the test be modified 
to ensure a subscriber is actually using a supported service rather 
than simply keeping a device powered?
    44. The Bureau seeks comment on whether the proposed definition of 
usage could result in service providers receiving payment where the 
subscriber is not actually using their ACP service. In the 2019 
Lifeline Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 84 FR 71338, December 27, 2019, 
the Commission asked whether it may be possible for a provider to 
install an application ``app'' on an end-users device that would 
``use'' data without the end-user's knowledge. This, and any other data 
usage that is not generated by the consumer would make it difficult to 
differentiate legitimate subscriber usage from data usage that happens 
without the knowledge or direction of the subscriber. The Lifeline 
usage rules require that the activities that demonstrate usage must be 
``undertaken

[[Page 74046]]

by the subscriber.'' Would making clear that usage of data means usage 
of data initiated by the ACP subscriber rather than fabricated by an 
app or some other means sufficiently address this issue? Are there 
other steps that the Commission should take to ensure that where ACP 
service is subject to the usage requirement, service providers are only 
being reimbursed where the end user is actually using the service? What 
records should service providers be required to maintain to 
sufficiently demonstrate actual subscriber usage of their ACP service 
during an audit or investigation?
    45. Alternatively, for purposes of the Affordable Connectivity 
Program should the usage documentation standards that have historically 
been used in Lifeline, with the need to rely on records supporting 
subscribers' calling, texting and billing activity, as well as data 
usage, be discontinued in favor of a different model for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program? For instance, should the Commission mandate a 
third-party app on subscriber devices that confirms the subscriber is 
accessing its ACP-supported service so that records substantiating 
subscriber usage no longer need to be reviewed? Or could subscribers 
simply be required to contact USAC periodically, to confirm they want 
to continue with the service? Would these proposals raise any privacy 
concerns? Are there other alternatives the Commission should consider 
to ensure that payments are only issued for ACP service the subscriber 
is actually using where required by program rules?
    46. Consistent with the Lifeline program, for purposes of the 
Affordable Connectivity Program, for households that subscribe to an 
ACP service that is subject to a usage requirement, the Bureau proposes 
a 30-day non-usage period, and a 15-day period for households to cure 
their non-usage. As with the Lifeline program, households that 
subscribe to an ACP service that is subject to a usage requirement and 
have not used their ACP-supported service in 30 days cannot be claimed 
for reimbursement after the initial 30-day non-usage period unless and 
until they have cured their non-usage. In order to cure non-usage, an 
ACP subscriber would need to demonstrate usage as defined in the 
Lifeline rules, and the Bureau proposes to extend the Lifeline usage 
rules to the Affordable Connectivity Program, with any modifications 
the Commission may adopt for the Affordable Connectivity Program. The 
Bureau seeks comment on these proposals. Given that the Affordable 
Connectivity Program is not an emergency program and will have a longer 
duration than the EBB Program, the Bureau further proposes requiring 
the de-enrollment of households who do not cure their non-usage in the 
permitted cure period, as is currently required in the Lifeline 
program. Are any modifications warranted to administer non-usage and 
de-enrollment for non-usage requirements for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program?
    47. Recertification. The Bureau next seeks comment on implementing 
a subscriber recertification requirement for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program to ensure enrolled subscribers continue to meet 
the ACP eligibility criteria from year to year. Annual recertifications 
are an important program safeguard for the Lifeline program to ensure 
the continued eligibility of enrolled subscribers. Accordingly, because 
the Affordable Connectivity Program is expected to extend multiple 
years, the Bureau proposes requiring households enrolled in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program to recertify their eligibility for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program at least annually (e.g., once a 
calendar year), starting with the calendar year following their 
enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity Program. For purposes of this 
requirement, should the Commission adopt the existing Lifeline rules 
and processes governing recertification and de-enrollment of households 
who do not pass recertification or fail to timely recertify? For EBB 
enrolled subscribers that transition to the Affordable Connectivity 
Program, what should be considered their enrollment date for the 
purposes of any ACP recertification requirement?
    48. For households whose eligibility for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program is verified through the National Verifier, the 
Bureau proposes to model recertification after the Lifeline program, 
where USAC is responsible for recertification for households who 
enrolled through the National Verifier. To recertify these households, 
USAC uses the automated databases in the National Verifier for 
recertification, and provides a paper recertification form, and online 
and Interactive Voice Response recertification option for households 
whose eligibility cannot be verified through the National Verifier's 
automated database connections. To promote administrative efficiency 
and minimize the administrative burden on providers and consumers, to 
the extent that it is technically feasible to track recertification of 
a particular subscriber across the Lifeline program and Affordable 
Connectivity Program, should the Commission allow households enrolled 
in both programs to rely on their Lifeline program recertification, 
including Lifeline program recertifications conducted by state agencies 
or state administrators for the opt-out states, to satisfy any 
recertification requirements the Bureau adopts for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program? Given the difference in eligibility criteria 
between the Affordable Connectivity and Lifeline programs, what 
bearing, if any, should a consumer's unsuccessful recertification for 
the Lifeline program have on the household's participation in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program? Should additional consumer outreach or 
notification be required for ACP households that did not pass or did 
not timely respond to a Lifeline recertification attempt? Should an 
unsuccessful recertification for the Lifeline program automatically 
trigger a need to verify continued eligibility for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program if the subscriber relied on their enrollment in a 
Lifeline-qualifying program to qualify for the Affordable Connectivity 
Program? Is there anything else the Bureau should consider concerning 
the interplay between Lifeline recertifications and any recertification 
requirement the Commission may adopt for the Affordable Connectivity 
Program?
    49. How should the recertification process work for households 
enrolled in the Affordable Connectivity Program whose initial 
eligibility was verified through a process other than the National 
Verifier? Should the Commission require USAC to perform the 
recertifications for these households, or should ACP participating 
providers be required to perform recertifications? To the extent it is 
technically and administratively feasible, would requiring USAC to 
recertify all ACP subscribers best promote program integrity and 
administrative efficiency? If ACP participating providers perform the 
recertifications for households enrolled in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program through a process other than the National Verifier, should the 
Commission require those providers to submit their recertification plan 
to the Bureau for prior approval? If so, how should that approval 
process work? If ACP participating providers conduct recertifications, 
should the Commission require them to follow the customer notification 
timelines and processes that USAC currently uses for Lifeline 
recertifications? Where USAC conducts recertifications for the Lifeline 
program, for example, the annual recertification is due by the 
subscriber's anniversary date, rather than using a single uniform 
recertification deadline for all

[[Page 74047]]

subscribers. The Bureau expects that, for the Affordable Connectivity 
Program, USAC and any service providers conducting recertifications 
would take a similar approach. How should households be timely de-
enrolled from the Affordable Connectivity Program upon a failed 
recertification effort? Is there anything else the Commission should 
consider in establishing a recertification requirement for households 
enrolled in the Affordable Connectivity Program?
    50. Just as in the EBB Program, the Affordable Connectivity Program 
will permit eligible households to receive a discount off the cost of 
broadband service and certain connected devices, and participating 
providers to receive a reimbursement for providing such discounts. 
Similar to the EBB Program, the Infrastructure Act defines ``internet 
service offering'' as broadband internet access service provided to a 
household by a broadband provider. Broadband internet access service 
retains the definition provided in Sec.  8.1(b) of the Commission's 
rules.
    51. The Infrastructure Act also adds a new requirement that a 
participating provider ``shall allow an eligible household to apply the 
affordable connectivity benefit to any internet service offering of the 
participating provider, at the same terms available to households that 
are not eligible households.'' The Bureau seeks comment on whether 
``any internet offering'' should include legacy or grandfathered plans 
or whether it only includes current offerings of a provider to new 
customers. The Bureau also seeks comment on how providers will make all 
of their offerings available for the Affordable Connectivity Program. 
In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on how providers expect to 
manage available offerings to ensure compliance with these statutory 
requirements. It may be that providers offer different plans in 
different geographies. The Bureau seeks comment on the extent to which 
geography affects plan availability, and whether some households will 
be more limited in their ability to apply the affordable connectivity 
benefit than others? How much time will providers need to assess their 
available offerings, and does an expedited timeline for launch of the 
ACP impact a provider's ability to go from hand-picking qualifying 
service offerings for inclusion in the EBB Program to the comprehensive 
approach described in the Act?
    52. The Bureau next seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
provide clarity on the internet service offerings that are eligible for 
reimbursement in the Affordable Connectivity Program. In the EBB 
Program Order, the Commission declined to apply minimum service 
standards to the internet service offerings eligible for EBB discounts. 
Should the Commission reconsider this approach for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program? Does the Commission have the authority under the 
Infrastructure Act to institute minimum service standards for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program? The Affordable Connectivity Program 
will feature a lower standard support amount of $30. Would setting 
minimum service requirements help to ensure that households are 
receiving a competitive broadband service that is covered by the 
support amount? Should the Commission consider other approaches to 
ensure that households are receiving a competitive service offering? 
Are such standards necessary given the additional consumer protections 
in the Infrastructure Act and the requirement that providers make all 
of their service offerings available for the Affordable Connectivity 
Program? If the Commission were to adopt minimum service standards, 
what should the minimum standards be? Should the Commission adopt the 
minimum service standards in place for the Lifeline program or 
different standards? How should the Affordable Connectivity Program 
standards evolve over time? Given the functional differences between 
how a household uses a mobile and fixed internet connection, the Bureau 
seeks comment on whether different service standards should be 
considered for mobile versus fixed internet service, and if so, what to 
base those standards on.
    53. While the Infrastructure Act removes the EBB Program 
requirement that a qualifying internet service offering be ``offered in 
the same manner and on the same terms, as described in any of such 
provider's offerings for broadband internet access service to such 
household as of December 1, 2020,'' it does allow a household to apply 
the ACP benefit to any internet service offering ``at the same terms 
available to households that are not eligible households.'' The Bureau 
seeks comment on the contours and administrability of this requirement. 
The Bureau seeks comment on whether this requirement ensures that 
eligible households receive competitive broadband service offerings, 
and what additional safeguards and requirements, if any, the Commission 
could adopt. For example, the Commission viewed the December 1, 2020 
requirement for acceptable service offerings in the EBB Program ``as a 
method of avoiding arbitrage opportunities and waste in the [EBB 
Program] by allowing unscrupulous providers to take advantage of the 
increased subsidy available.'' Does the Commission have the authority 
under the Infrastructure Act to impose any limitations on the services 
offered? The Bureau seeks comment on rules that would enhance the 
opportunity that low-income households participating in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program would receive a competitive internet service 
offering that meets the needs of the household. While households should 
be able to apply the ACP benefit to an internet service offering of 
their choosing, should the Commission prevent providers from 
introducing into the marketplace internet service offerings that seek 
only to maximize the ACP benefit reimbursement while not actually 
providing households with a market-rate internet service? Should the 
Commission be concerned that providers will have an incentive to raise 
the price of a $15 plan to a $30 dollar plan solely to maximize the 
reimbursement amount? Are there additional measures the Commission can 
take to reduce price gouging and other harms? Alternatively, will 
providers respond to the requirement that Affordable Connectivity 
Program and non-ACP subscribers have access to the same service 
offerings by restricting offerings of certain plans for all of their 
customers? How can the Commission reduce the incentive for providers to 
enact pricing or offering strategies that may harm non-eligible 
households?
    54. Under the EBB Program, providers are required to make available 
``at least one EBB Program-reimbursed service to each of its eligible 
households within its service area.'' The Bureau seeks comment on 
whether the Commission should adopt this policy for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. Is this requirement still necessary given that an 
ACP household may apply the benefit to any broadband service offered by 
the provider? The Bureau also seeks comment on providers' ability to 
quickly implement the Infrastructure Act's requirement that a household 
may apply the benefit to any internet service offering of the 
participating provider, at the same terms available to households not 
participating in the Affordable Connectivity Program. What provider 
billing and system changes are necessary in order to provide discounted 
broadband service to ACP households? The Bureau suspects that the 
requirement to make the benefit

[[Page 74048]]

available to all broadband services will have a significant impact on 
providers and it seeks comment on whether providers would be prepared 
to participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program by the 
Infrastructure Act's contemplated effective date of December 31, 2021. 
The Bureau also seeks comment on whether the statutory deadline for 
implementing this change could deter providers from electing to 
participate in the program or cause them to delay their election until 
their systems were prepared to support the application of the benefit 
across all available broadband services.
    55. Multiple Dwelling Units. The Bureau also seeks comment on 
whether the Commission should adopt measures to make it easier for 
residents in multiple dwelling units with bulk broadband providers to 
participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program. In the EBB Program 
Order, the Commission determined that eligible households that ``live 
at a single address, such as senior and student living, mobile home 
parks, apartment buildings, and federal units, that receive service as 
part of a bulk billing arrangement where the households `are not 
directly billed for services by their internet service provider, but 
instead pay a monthly fee for broadband services to their landlord''' 
should be permitted to participate in the EBB Program. The Commission 
agreed with commenters and made the EBB Program available to such 
households, ``as long as the provider is approved in the Program and 
the household is eligible under the statute,'' and set out additional 
guidelines for such situations. Should the Commission adopt this 
flexibility in the Affordable Connectivity Program? What else should 
the Commission consider about such arrangements?
    56. Bundled Service Offerings. In the EBB Program Order, the 
Commission found that bundled service offerings such as those offering 
voice, data, and texting could be eligible for the EBB Program if such 
bundled offerings were offered in the same manner and on the same terms 
on or before December 1, 2020. However, the Commission declined to 
allow the Emergency Broadband Benefit to be applied to the full price 
of broadband-bundled video service, finding that it was not 
contemplated in the statute and not necessary to ensure that consumers 
in the EBB Program have a robust choice in broadband service offerings. 
The Bureau proposes that, as in the EBB Program, voice, data, and text 
bundled services should be eligible for ACP support, while broadband-
video bundled services should not. The Bureau seeks comment on this 
proposal.
    57. Associated Equipment. The Infrastructure Act modifies the 
definition of the benefit to be applied to broadband service. 
Specifically, the affordable connectivity benefit ``means a monthly 
discount for an eligible household applied to the actual amount charged 
to such household, in an amount equal to such amount charged, but not 
more than $30, or if an internet service offering is provided to an 
eligible household on Tribal land, not more than $75.'' The 
Infrastructure Act removed a reference to ``associated equipment'' that 
was included in the definition of ``emergency broadband benefit'' 
previously. The prior inclusion of ``associated equipment'' allowed the 
Commission to include ``equipment necessary for the transmission 
functions of internet service offerings supported through the EBB 
Program,'' which the Commission found includes equipment such as 
modems, routers, and hotspot devices and antennas. In light of this 
modification of the definition, the Bureau seeks comment on whether 
monthly rental costs for equipment such as modems, routers, hot spot 
devices, antennas, and any other equipment that is necessary for the 
transmission functions of internet service offerings should be eligible 
for the affordable connectivity benefit. To the extent the Commission 
makes the monthly rental costs for such equipment eligible in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program, the Bureau seeks comment on whether 
the Commission should continue to disallow reimbursement for upfront 
costs for such equipment that a provider may charge a consumer when 
they begin receiving broadband service.
    58. Connected Devices. The Infrastructure Act retains the 
definition of connected device and the reimbursement rate for such 
devices used in the EBB Program. For the Affordable Connectivity 
Program, participating providers, in addition to providing an ACP-
supported broadband service to the household, may be reimbursed up to 
$100 for a connected device delivered to the household, provided that 
the ``charge to such eligible household is more than $10 but less than 
$50 for such connected device.'' A connected device is defined in the 
statute as a laptop, desktop computer, or a tablet.
    59. In the EBB Program Order, because the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act declined to include cellular phones or smartphones 
in the definition of connected devices, the Commission found that a 
connected device could not include ``devices that can independently 
make cellular calls such as large phones or phablets.'' The Bureau 
proposes that the Commission adopt the same approach in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program, and it seeks comment on that proposal. One EBB 
Program provider has suggested the EBB Program could support some 
tablets with cellular capabilities. Should the Commission provide 
additional guidance or flexibility with respect to the characteristics 
or features that would make a laptop, desktop, or tablet eligible under 
the program?
    60. The Infrastructure Act also does not alter the requirement that 
a provider may not receive reimbursement for more than one connected 
device per household. In the EBB Program Order, the Commission found 
that there was no legal basis to allow households to receive more than 
one connected device through the EBB Program. The Bureau proposes to 
adopt the same approach for the Affordable Connectivity Program. The 
Bureau also seeks comment on interpreting the one-time connected device 
reimbursement restriction to prevent providers from claiming a device 
reimbursement in the Affordable Connectivity Program for a household 
that received a reimbursable connected device in the EBB Program. 
Should the Commission prohibit households that received a connected 
device through the EBB Program from receiving a second device in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program (and therefore prohibiting providers 
from claiming a connected device discount reimbursement for a household 
enrolled in the Affordable Connectivity Program if that household 
received a connected device through the EBB Program)? The EBB Program 
Order also clarifies that participating providers must actually charge 
the household a co-payment at least $10 but no more $50 before they can 
receive reimbursement of up to $100 for a connected device. The Bureau 
also proposes that providers be required to retain documentation 
proving that the eligible household made a compliant financial 
contribution towards the cost of the connected device, as well as the 
amount thereof, before the provider seeks reimbursement. The Bureau 
seeks comment on this proposal. In the EBB Program Order, the 
Commission declined to require USAC to collect and review documentation 
supporting the connected device claim. Documentation requirements serve 
important protections against program waste, so the Bureau seeks 
comment on whether the Commission should require a provider to submit 
documentation supporting a connected device claim in

[[Page 74049]]

the Affordable Connectivity Program. Should the Commission require a 
review of a provider's supporting documentation before processing the 
reimbursement claim for a connected device?
    61. The EBB Program Order and rules require that providers seeking 
reimbursement for the connected device discount certify, under penalty 
of perjury, that the reimbursement claim for the connected device 
reflects the market value of the device. In determining whether the 
amount claimed for the connected device reflects no more than the 
market value of the device, should the Commission take into account the 
amount of the co-pay collected from the household? If the Commission 
were to maintain for the Affordable Connectivity Program the ``market 
value'' standard used for the EBB Program, how should the market value 
be determined, particularly where a device offered by a provider 
through the program is not available in the retail market? What 
information should the providers be required to retain and provide to 
demonstrate that they claimed an appropriate amount for the device?
    62. The Bureau also seeks comment on requiring that the 
reimbursement amount for a connected device reflects the cost of the 
connected device to the provider. For example, there are many tablets 
sold for less than $100, and providers may be able to purchase them at 
wholesale cost or receive volume discounts. Under the rules of the EBB 
Program, in those circumstances, providers would be able to seek 
reimbursement for the higher market value of the device, rather than 
the cost to the provider for obtaining and delivering the device to the 
household, and make a profit from the EBB Program. Should the 
Affordable Connectivity Program permit providers to profit off the 
benefit by receiving more funding in reimbursement than the provider's 
cost to procure and supply the device? Would using a cost-based 
standard allow USAC and the Commission to determine if the provider is 
claiming the appropriate amount, particularly where the provider's 
device is not widely available or not sold in retail stores? The Bureau 
seeks comment on how the Commission can ensure that providers are not 
claiming amounts beyond what it cost them to provide the device. The 
Bureau also seeks comment on whether limiting providers to claiming a 
reimbursement amount that reflects the cost to them of acquiring and 
providing the device to the household would discourage providers from 
offering connected devices eligible for reimbursement from the 
Affordable Connectivity Fund? If the Commission were to adopt a cost-
based approach, what sort of incentive would providers need (e.g., 
cost-plus) in order to find offering a device worthwhile? How can the 
Commission be sure that any such incentive is reasonable and does not 
lead to offers of inferior devices and/or overcharge to the Affordable 
Connectivity Fund or consumers?
    63. In the EBB Program Order, the Commission adopted a rule 
prohibiting providers from seeking connected device reimbursement for a 
household if that household is not receiving the EBB for service 
provided by the same participating provider, and the Commission 
required claims for connected devices must be made ``concurrent with or 
after the provider's first reimbursement claim for service for that 
household.'' In response to feedback from providers, the Bureau 
subsequently released an order waiving this rule, explaining that 
granting the waiver removes a disincentive that could discourage 
providers from offering connected devices if there is uncertainty about 
a provider's ability to seek reimbursement for a connected device 
delivered to a household that transfers its benefit to another provider 
before the first provider has the opportunity to claim reimbursement 
for the discounted device. Accordingly, the waiver allows providers to 
seek reimbursement for a connected device provided to a household that 
had been receiving an EBB-supported service from that provider at the 
time the device was supplied to the household, even if the household 
subsequently transferred their EBB service benefit to a different 
provider. The Bureau seeks comment on allowing a provider to claim 
reimbursement for a connected device where the provider delivered a 
connected device and ACP-supported service to the household, but the 
household transferred its benefit to a different provider before the 
end of the service month. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether 
other adjustments to the connected device claims process should be 
considered for the Affordable Connectivity Program. What modifications 
should the Commission adopt to improve the reimbursement process?
    64. The Bureau also seeks comment on the process for resolving 
disputes involving the connected device reimbursement process. USAC has 
developed a dispute process to be applied in scenarios where a provider 
seeks to claim a connected device for a household that has already been 
claimed by another provider for a connected device. In order to 
demonstrate that the household is eligible to be claimed by the second 
provider for a connected device, perhaps because the household contends 
that it did not receive the connected device from the first provider, 
the second provider must notify USAC that it wishes to initiate the 
dispute process. Once the second provider files a dispute, USAC will 
request from the household's previous provider documentation confirming 
that the connected device was delivered to the household, the household 
was charged a co-pay of more than $10 but less than $50 toward the 
purchase price, and the household consented to purchase the device. 
USAC will then review the response and documentation provided and 
determine whether the new provider is eligible to receive reimbursement 
for the connected device for the household. The Bureau proposes to 
maintain this dispute resolution process for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program and it seeks comment on this proposal. What other 
factors should the Commission consider in developing policies or 
procedures for ACP connected device claims?
    65. The Bureau next seeks comment on EBB household experiences 
choosing qualifying connected devices for the EBB Program to determine 
if there are any other improvements the Commission can make to the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. Did providers offer a broad range of 
device choices? Data from the EBB Program show that the vast majority 
of connected devices supported were tablets, with far fewer households 
receiving laptop or desktop computers. Were the devices offered to 
households too restrictive or limited in function? Should the 
Commission require that a connected device be able to connect to all 
Wi-Fi devices, and not just certain hotspots? The Bureau also seeks 
comment from providers on what factors they considered in their 
decisions to offer or not to offer connected devices in the EBB 
Program.
    66. For the EBB Program, the Commission declined to adopt minimum 
system requirements for connected devices, finding that setting such 
standards ``could limit consumer choice and exacerbate barriers to 
broadband service that may have existed prior to COVID-19.'' The 
Commission instead said that it expected devices to support video 
conferencing platforms, should be Wi-Fi enabled and have video and 
camera functions. The Commission also stated that it expected that 
connected devices be accessible to and usable by those with 
disabilities. The

[[Page 74050]]

Bureau seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt minimum 
system requirements and other minimum specifications for connected 
devices given the longer-term nature of this new program? For example, 
should the Commission establish a minimum size for tablets to ensure 
that the screen size is adequate for meaningful use? Given that this is 
intended to be a long-term program, if the Commission does adopt 
minimum system requirements, how often should they be updated, if at 
all?
    67. The Bureau also proposes that the Commission apply the 
requirements of Sec.  54.10 of the Commission's rules to the Affordable 
Connectivity Program in the same manner as those requirements are 
applied in the EBB Program. Sec.  54.10 says that a ``Federal subsidy 
made available through a program administered by the Commission that 
provides funds to be used for the capital expenditures necessary for 
the provision of advanced communications service may not be used to'' 
``[p]urchase, rent, lease, or otherwise obtain, any covered 
communications equipment or service,'' or ``[m]aintain any covered 
communications equipment or service previously purchased, rented, 
leased, or otherwise obtained.'' Sec.  54.10 further notes that 
``covered communications equipment or service'' is defined in section 
1.50001 as ``any communications equipment or service that is included 
on the Covered List,'' and section 1.50001 further defines 
``communications equipment or service'' as '' any equipment or service 
used in fixed and mobile networks that provides advanced communication 
service, provided the equipment or service includes or uses electronic 
components,'' and any device that is on a Covered List is one that 
poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United 
States or the security and safety of United States persons. As 
discussed in this document, a connected device supported by the 
Affordable Connectivity Program includes a laptop, desktop computer, or 
tablet, and the Bureau believes that funds used for such devices could 
reasonably be considered to be funds for capital expenditures, and 
further that such capital expenditures could reasonably be considered 
to be ``necessary for the provision of advanced communications 
service'' as defined in section 1.50001 and contemplated by Sec.  
54.10. The Bureau seeks comment on the application of Sec.  54.10 to 
the Affordable Connectivity Program and on how the Commission and USAC 
can verify a provider's compliance with this requirement.
    68. Tribal Lands Benefit. The Affordable Connectivity Program 
retains from the EBB Program the enhanced, $75 per month subsidy for 
households located on Tribal lands. For the EBB Program, the Commission 
adopted the definition of Tribal lands used in the Lifeline program. 
That definition covers ``any federally recognized Indian tribe's 
reservation, pueblo, or colony including former reservations in 
Oklahoma; Alaska Native regions established pursuant to the Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688); Indian allotments; 
Hawaiian Homes Lands--areas held in trust for Native Americans by the 
state of Hawaii, pursuant to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 
July 9, 1921, 42 Stat. 108, et seq. as amended, and any land designated 
as such by the Commission for purposes of this subpart pursuant to the 
designation process in Sec.  54.412.'' The Bureau proposes that the 
Commission use the same Tribal lands definition from Lifeline and the 
EBB Program for determining the areas that would qualify for the 
enhanced benefit in the Affordable Connectivity Program, as well as use 
the same maps for Tribal lands that are used in those predecessor 
programs. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal and on using 
existing USAC processes for verifying that an eligible household is 
located on Tribal lands. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether the 
off-reservation Tribal land designation process for Lifeline in Sec.  
54.412 of the Commission's rules should be adopted and used in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. Should the Commission consider other 
changes to the definition of Tribal lands? Are there other factors the 
Commission should consider?
    69. High-Cost Areas. The Infrastructure Act also provides for a 
separate enhanced benefit for households that are served by providers 
in high-cost areas. The Infrastructure Act requires the Commission to 
establish a mechanism by which an ACP participating provider in a high-
cost area, as defined in a separate section of the Infrastructure Act, 
may receive an enhanced benefit of up to $75 for broadband service 
``upon a showing that the applicability of the lower limit under 
subparagraph A [the $30 rate] to the provision of the affordable 
connectivity benefit by the provider would cause particularized 
economic hardship to the provider such that the provider may not be 
able to maintain the operation of part or all of its broadband 
network.'' The Bureau seeks comment on how the Commission can best 
administer this provision efficiently and with a minimal burden on 
qualifying households and providers.
    70. As a preliminary matter, ``high-cost area'' is defined 
elsewhere in the Infrastructure Act as the ``unserved area in which the 
cost of building out broadband service is higher, as compared with the 
average cost of building out broadband service in unserved areas in the 
United States (as determined by the Assistant Secretary [of Commerce 
for Communications and Information], in consultation with the [Federal 
Communications] Commission).'' The Act further provides that factors to 
be incorporated into this determination are: (1) The remote location of 
the area; (2) the lack of population density of the area; (3) the 
unique topography of the area; (4) a high rate of poverty in the area; 
or (5) any other factor identified by the Assistant Secretary, in 
consultation with the Commission, that contributes to the higher cost 
of deploying broadband service in the area.''
    71. Given that the distribution of the enhanced benefit depends on 
a mechanism that is based on a determination of high-cost areas 
developed primarily by a separate agency, the enhanced reimbursement to 
providers for broadband services in high-cost areas cannot be provided 
until the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(NTIA) identifies such high-cost areas. The Bureau seeks comment on how 
this mechanism should work once NTIA makes the determination of high-
cost areas. What should a provider be required to show to establish 
that there would be a ``particularized economic hardship to the 
provider such that the provider may not be able to maintain the 
operation of part or all of its broadband network'' if the provider is 
limited to providing a discount of only $30? Should the Commission 
adopt a specific standard or test for such hardship, and if so, what 
should it be? Who should decide whether the provider has met such a 
standard? How should aggrieved providers appeal decisions related to 
this standard? How should the Bureau take into consideration other 
subsidies and financial benefits used by the providers to deploy 
broadband service in these high-cost areas when evaluating provider 
requests for the enhanced benefit? Are there administrative steps the 
Commission can take while the NTIA is working to identify the 
qualifying high-cost areas to speed the development of the mechanism? 
The Bureau seeks comment on any other

[[Page 74051]]

matters related to the mechanism for high-cost areas.
    72. The Bureau proposes to provide reimbursement for discounted 
services and connected devices delivered to a qualifying household 
after a provider has elected to participate in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. The Bureau proposes that participating providers 
be reimbursed through a process similar to the EBB Claims System 
administered by USAC, and subject to all the requirements of the 
Lifeline Claims System. In both the Lifeline and EBB programs, 
providers are required to submit a reimbursement request through USAC's 
Claims System based on the number of households enrolled in the NLAD on 
a specific date each month, called a snapshot date. Providers must 
review the snapshot report, validate the households for which they are 
requesting reimbursement, indicate a reason for any unclaimed 
subscribers, and review, correct, and certify the requested 
reimbursement amount. In the EBB Program, the Commission also 
established a uniform snapshot date of the first of each month for EBB 
claims, finding that having a uniform snapshot date brings efficiencies 
to the reimbursement process by restricting support to eligible 
subscribers that are enrolled in NLAD by the snapshot date. The 
Commission also found that using a uniform snapshot date removes 
uncertainties for providers regarding the amount that could be claimed 
if the Commission allowed providers to claim subscribers on a pro-rata 
basis. For the Affordable Connectivity Program, the Bureau seeks 
comment on whether the Commission should also adopt a uniform snapshot 
date for determining the households that are eligible to be claimed for 
service in a service month, and whether the snapshot date should be the 
first day of each month. Are there other alternatives to the snapshot 
paradigm that the Commission should consider for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program? The Bureau also seeks comment on how alternatives 
to the snapshot date approach would affect the claims process for 
connected devices.
    73. In the EBB Program Order, the Commission required participating 
providers that are applying both the Lifeline discount and the 
Emergency Broadband Benefit to a household's supported broadband 
service to apply the full Lifeline discount first before determining 
the reimbursement amount claimed under the EBB Program in order to 
maximize the scarce funding in the temporary EBB Program. The 
Commission found that this approach was consistent with the 
requirements of Sec.  54.403(b) of the Commission's rules regarding the 
application of Lifeline support. The Bureau proposes to adopt this 
approach for the Affordable Connectivity Program. The Bureau also seeks 
comment on clarifying that the ``full Lifeline discount'' includes both 
federal and any state support. The Bureau seeks comment on this idea 
and whether the Commission would have the authority to require that any 
benefit provided by a state low-income broadband program be applied 
before a provider calculates the amount to claim from the Affordable 
Connectivity Program.
    74. The Bureau further seeks comment on whether the Commission 
should allow providers to claim partial month support. The Affordable 
Connectivity Program provides a more generous monthly subsidy than the 
Lifeline program and will extend for a much longer period of time than 
the EBB Program. As a result of these differences, should the 
Commission consider allowing for partial month, pro-rated support? 
Specifically, should the Commission permit a provider to claim for pro-
rated, partial reimbursement a household that receives service from the 
provider during part but not all of a service month? In situations 
where the household switches to a supported service offered by another 
ACP provider, should both the former provider and the new provider be 
able to claim pro-rated partial reimbursement for the household for the 
same month? How will the use of the snapshot date work with partial 
claims? What will providers need to change about their billing and 
claims processes to seek partial month support? Will providers be able 
to determine the appropriate amount to pass through to the household 
and also claim from the program? The Commission in the EBB Program 
Order found that ``employing a method that allows for partial claims 
would be cumbersome to administer.'' The Bureau seeks comment on 
whether the same consideration applies for a program that is not 
temporary and is expected to provide support for years. The Bureau also 
seeks comment on whether allowing providers to claim reimbursement for 
partial month support would cause customer confusion about the discount 
they should expect to receive for their ACP-supported service. Beyond 
customer confusion, what other consumer impacts might result from 
allowing providers to claim reimbursement for a partial month? Lastly, 
the Bureau seeks comment on how disputes between providers over 
appropriate partial month claims should be resolved.
    75. Once a provider has received its snapshot report for the 
previous month, the EBB Program requires the provider to upload and 
certify its claims by the 15th day of each month, or the following 
business day in the event the 15th falls on a weekend or holiday. Due 
to the limited funds and temporary nature of the EBB Program, the 
Commission concluded that claims cannot be revised after that mid-month 
deadline. The Commission adopted this approach in part to assist USAC 
and the Commission in creating a reliable forecast for the limited-
funding program. Given the newness of the EBB Program and the number of 
providers participating, the Bureau has issued waivers allowing these 
providers extra time to certify the reimbursement claims. Because the 
Affordable Connectivity Program will extend longer than the EBB 
Program, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
offer providers more flexibility regarding the deadlines by when they 
must certify their claims. The Bureau seeks comment on the length of 
time providers should have for uploading and certifying their claims 
for a service month. In addition to the questions posed in this 
document, the Bureau seeks comment on how any flexibility offered to 
providers for service claims would impact the claims process for 
connected devices. Given that the connected device benefit is a one-
time benefit, would allowing providers the flexibility to delay the 
certification of claims interfere with the administration of the claims 
process for devices? The Bureau seeks comment on the ways the 
Commission could offer flexibility to the claims process for service 
and devices while guarding against waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
program.
    76. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether providers should be 
permitted to revise their certified claims. For example, the Lifeline 
program has a one-year deadline for upward revisions that increase the 
amount of funding requested by the provider. The Bureau seeks comment 
on a reasonable revision period. Should the Commission only allow 
upward revisions in certain circumstances? If so, what are the 
circumstances in which a revision would be justified? Because funding 
for the Affordable Connectivity Program is limited, if the Commission 
allows revisions, the Bureau seeks comment on imposing reasonable 
restrictions on upward revisions in the final months of the program 
when funds are close to exhaustion. Finally, regardless of any rules 
permitting

[[Page 74052]]

revisions, and consistent with the Commission's directives in the EBB 
Program Order, the Bureau proposes that providers would continue to 
have an obligation to report any non-compliant conduct, including the 
receipt of excessive payments.
    77. The Infrastructure Act retains most of the provider 
certifications that were required by the EBB Program. Providers are 
required to certify that: Each household for which the provider is 
seeking reimbursements will not be charged an early termination fee if 
it later terminates a contract; each household was not subject to a 
mandatory waiting period; and each household will be subject to a 
participating provider's generally applicable terms and conditions. 
Providers are also required to certify that each household for which 
the provider is claiming reimbursement for a connected device discount 
has been charged the required co-pay. Providers claiming a household 
whose eligibility was determined by the provider's alternative 
verification process must also certify that such households were 
verified by a process that was designed to avoid waste, fraud and 
abuse. The Bureau proposes that these certifications accompany each 
request for reimbursement, by participating providers, and that each 
certification be submitted under penalty of perjury. The Bureau also 
proposes that the Commission model the certifications used in the EBB 
Program to the extent that they are consistent with the rules adopted 
for the Affordable Connectivity Program and include any additional 
certifications that may be appropriate to satisfy new rules for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. Should the Commission add any other 
certifications as a prerequisite to reimbursement? The Bureau proposes 
to require providers to certify that, for any reimbursement claims for 
a delivered connected device, the household was charged a compliant co-
pay and that the co-pay was collected? Should the provider also be 
required to certify that it will not charge, or has not charged, the 
household for the amount for which the provider is seeking 
reimbursement?
    78. The Infrastructure Act includes several additional provisions 
related to consumer protection that build upon the existing consumer 
protection measures in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The 
Infrastructure Act leaves unchanged the requirements that participating 
providers must not deny an eligible household the ability to 
participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program based on any past or 
present arrearages with that provider. Moreover, providers are still 
required to certify that subscribers will not be required to pay an 
early termination fee if the eligible household being claimed elects to 
enter into a contract to receive such internet service offering and 
later terminates the contract. Providers must also still certify that 
the subscriber was not subject to a mandatory waiting period for their 
ACP-supported service based on having previously received internet 
service from the provider, and that the household will be subject to 
the provider's generally applicable terms and conditions as applied to 
other customers. The Bureau next seeks comment on how to implement the 
new consumer protection provisions included in the Infrastructure Act.
    79. The Infrastructure Act prohibits a participating provider from 
requiring an eligible household to submit to a credit check as a 
condition for applying the ACP benefit to that provider's internet 
service offerings. The Bureau proposes to prohibit providers from 
inquiring, requesting or otherwise causing a consumer to submit to a 
credit check, or from accessing a consumer's credit information, before 
enrolling the consumer in the Affordable Connectivity Program. The 
Bureau seeks comment on how the Commission should ensure that providers 
are not requiring households to submit to credit checks as a pre-
requisite for enrolling in the Affordable Connectivity Program with the 
provider. Should the Commission rely on self-certification and require 
providers to certify under penalty of perjury that the households they 
are claiming were not subject to credit checks as a condition of 
enrolling with the provider for the Affordable Connectivity Program? 
Should this requirement apply to all households enrolled in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program, or only to new households enrolling in 
the Affordable Connectivity Program? Must providers make this 
certification for existing customers? The Bureau seeks comment on its 
proposal and on other approaches the Commission should consider to 
ensure that providers are complying with this requirement.
    80. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether a credit check may be 
permitted in certain circumstances. Should the Commission allow 
providers to use the results of a credit check to determine which 
equipment or devices may be offered to a household so long as the 
household has access to equipment or devices necessary to use the ACP-
supported service? Should the Commission allow providers to use the 
results of a credit check for services that are not covered by the ACP 
benefit if the household selects a bundled service plan? Is permitting 
use of a credit check under these limited circumstances consistent with 
the statutory provision prohibiting credit checks as a condition for 
participation in the Affordable Connectivity Program? Would permitting 
a provider to use the results of a credit check to determine which 
plans are made available to a household be inconsistent with this 
statutory provision?
    81. The Infrastructure Act permits a participating provider to 
terminate a subscriber's access to broadband internet access service 
supported by the Affordable Connectivity Program after 90 days of non-
payment. The Infrastructure Act, however, does not disturb the 
requirement that providers cannot decline to enroll a household based 
on ``any past or present arrearages with a broadband provider . . .'' 
The Bureau seeks comment on how the Commission should reconcile these 
provisions. Should this non-payment provision apply only to new 
instances of non-payment associated with the ACP-supported service 
after a subscriber is enrolled with a participating provider? If a 
subscriber is de-enrolled for non-payment, how could the subscriber 
transfer the benefit to a different provider? Could a subscriber de-
enrolled for non-payment be able to participate in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program with a different provider or even re-enroll with 
the same provider? What options should be available to providers when 
their ACP subscribers are in non-payment? Should providers be required 
to mitigate the non-payment by lowering a consumer's service quality 
(e.g., lowering the customer's download speeds) if the rate of the 
supported service exceeds the amount of the benefit applied to the 
consumer's bill? Should the Commission allow for this mitigation? 
Should the Commission require providers to transmit to NLAD information 
that will allow the Commission to determine whether the household is 
assessed and charged a fee for the ACP-supported service after the 
benefit has been applied?
    82. Similar to the EBB Program, the Bureau proposes that providers 
in the Affordable Connectivity Program must pass through the ACP 
benefit to households before claiming reimbursement for the discount. 
Based on the Bureau's experience in the EBB Program, it is concerned 
that providers may fail to timely apply the ACP benefit to a 
household's bill after the household is enrolled in the program. In 
particular, there were complaints that some providers in the EBB 
Program were

[[Page 74053]]

delaying application of the program benefit to subscriber accounts for 
an unreasonable period of time. Subscribers reported to the Commission 
that, because the EBB Program benefit was not timely applied, they were 
sent to collections or experienced service interruptions. The Bureau 
seeks comment on how to address situations where the provider fails to 
apply the ACP benefit to a household's bill consistent with the 
Commission's rules and, as a result, the household does not receive the 
benefit and is required to pay the full amount for the internet 
service. Should the Commission affirmatively require that providers 
immediately apply the discount to a household's broadband bill or 
consumer account upon enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program? Should providers have to apply the ACP benefit to the 
consumer's account before being able to terminate access to the 
supported service for non-payment?
    83. To prevent undue termination of service and loss of vital 
benefits, the Bureau proposes to require participating providers to 
provide adequate notice to subscribers of their delinquent status 
before terminating the subscriber's service for non-payment. The Bureau 
seeks comment on this proposal, specifically on the frequency of 
notice, timing, and method of communicating the notice. The Bureau also 
seeks comment on whether the Commission should develop a process by 
which subscribers may dispute their provider's claim of non-payment. 
The Bureau seeks comment on the process for households to dispute 
allegations of non-payment with the provider and whether the provider 
could terminate the household's internet service for non-payment 
pending resolution of the dispute.
    84. The Infrastructure Act requires the Commission to establish a 
dedicated complaint process for Affordable Connectivity Program 
participants to file complaints about the compliance of participating 
providers with program rules and requirements, including complaints 
``with respect to the quality of service received under the Program.'' 
The Bureau seeks comment on this requirement, generally, including how 
the Commission should measure quality of service received under the 
Program?
    85. To date, consumers have used the Commission's Consumer 
Complaint Center to file EBB-related informal complaints against their 
providers with the Commission. The Commission's informal consumer 
complaint process is a long-standing, free, and effective way for 
consumers to raise issues with their providers and bring issues to the 
attention of the Commission. To comply with the requirements of the 
Infrastructure Act, the Bureau proposes that the Commission add 
Affordable Connectivity Program content to the Consumer Complaint 
Center to educate consumers about the program, a dedicated pathway in 
the Consumer Complaint Center to file ACP-related complaints, including 
notification to the providers that the complaint involves the 
Affordable Connectivity Program, clear direction to consumers on how to 
correctly file an ACP complaint, and dedicated Commission staff from 
the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) to 
review and process the complaints. The Bureau seeks comment on these 
proposals. Are there other ways the Commission can provide improvements 
to its existing informal consumer complaint process to benefit the 
dedicated complaint process for ACP participants? What, if any, 
additional changes or modifications should the Commission make to the 
existing informal consumer complaint process to comply with the 
Infrastructure Act requirement?
    86. The Infrastructure Act also requires the Commission to act 
expeditiously to investigate potential violations of program rules and 
requirements and to enforce compliance. Moreover, the Commission is 
permitted to impose forfeiture penalties to enforce compliance. 
Consistent with this statutory direction, the Bureau proposes to use 
the Commission's existing, statutorily permitted enforcement powers to 
initiate investigations of program rule violations. The Bureau seeks 
comment on this proposal.
    87. The Infrastructure Act also requires participating providers to 
provide Affordable Connectivity Program participants with information 
on the Commission's dedicated complaint process. Should the Commission 
require participating providers to prominently display the Commission's 
contact center phone number and the website address for the 
Commission's Consumer Complaint Center on the subscriber's bill, on the 
provider's Affordable Connectivity Program web page, and on all of the 
provider's marketing materials? The Bureau seeks comment on how 
information about the dedicated consumer complaint process should be 
disseminated to consumers. If a consumer complains to the participating 
provider regarding an ACP-supported service or any difficulty enrolling 
with the provider, does the provider have an obligation under the 
statute to inform the consumer of their right to file a complaint with 
the Commission? If not, should the Commission require participating 
providers to do so?
    88. The Infrastructure Act also requires the Commission to 
regularly issue public reports regarding consumer complaints alleging 
provider non-compliance with the Affordable Connectivity Program rules. 
The Bureau seeks comment on what these statutorily mandated reports 
should include, the frequency of such reports, and the method by which 
the reports should be made available to the public. How should the 
Commission balance subscriber privacy and its obligations under the 
Privacy Act with the need for transparency when determining the 
contents of those reports?
    89. The Infrastructure Act mandates that the Commission promulgate 
additional rules to protect consumers who participate in or seek to 
participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program. As a preliminary 
matter, the Bureau notes that the Infrastructure Act states that the 
Commission must craft these particular rules ``after providing notice 
and opportunity for comment in accordance with section 553 of title 5, 
United States Code,'' which is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 
At the same time, section 904(h) provides an exemption from APA 
requirements for ``regulation[s] promulgated under subsection (c),'' 
the general rulemaking for section 904, which includes the consumer 
protection requirements. The Bureau seeks comment on how the Commission 
should reconcile these apparently conflicting provisions.
    90. In the event that the Commission concludes that the 
Infrastructure Act requires the consumer protection rules to be 
implemented through APA notice-and-comment rulemaking, the Bureau seeks 
comment on whether the Commission could find that there is good cause 
to depart from those requirements. The APA generally requires us to 
adopt rules only after publishing a Commission-level ``general notice 
of proposed rule making'' in the Federal Register and providing a 
reasonable comment period after the Federal Register publication. In 
addition, the APA generally requires that final rules be effective no 
sooner than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. 
Complying with these APA rulemaking requirements for this set of 
consumer protection rules would push the effective date of these rules 
at least two months beyond the December 31 effective date of the 
delayed amendments to the statute. Under these circumstances, would 
there be good

[[Page 74054]]

cause for other than strict adherence to the APA requirements?
    91. As for the substantive topics the Commission must evaluate, the 
Infrastructure Act requires that the Commission promulgate rules 
prohibiting any inappropriate upselling or downselling by a provider. 
The Bureau first seeks comment on what practices constitute 
inappropriate upselling or downselling. Are upselling or downselling 
always inappropriate, or are there instances where such practices are 
beneficial to the consumer? If so, when is upselling or downselling 
appropriate? What, if any, upselling or downselling practices should be 
permitted?
    92. The Infrastructure Act also requires that the Commission 
promulgate rules that would protect consumers in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program from any inappropriate requirements that a 
consumer opt-in to an extended service contract as a condition of 
participating in the Affordable Connectivity Program. The 
Infrastructure Act, however, does not alter the requirement from the 
EBB Program that participating providers must certify that an eligible 
household will not be required to pay an early termination fee if the 
household elects to enter into--but later terminates--a contract for 
internet service. The Bureau first seeks comment on what constitutes an 
inappropriate opt-in requirement. Can a provider require an opt-in to a 
longer term contract before the household enrolls in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program? Should the Commission prohibit opt-ins prior to 
enrollment in all situations? Or are there times when pre-enrollment 
opt-in is beneficial to the enrolling household? Are there 
circumstances where an extended service contract would be beneficial to 
consumers, and if so, what are those circumstances? The Bureau also 
seeks comment on the tension between the consumer protection provisions 
described in this document. How should the Commission determine the 
circumstances in which requiring an extended service agreement would be 
inappropriate in light of the requirement that providers must also 
certify that the household will not be required to pay an early 
termination fee?
    93. The Infrastructure Act also prohibits providers from 
implementing any inappropriate restrictions on the ability of a 
customer to switch internet service offerings. Should the Commission 
prohibit providers from limiting their ACP-supported service offerings 
to new or existing customers? How can the Commission determine what 
constitutes an inappropriate restriction? Are there any restrictions on 
the ability to switch internet service offerings that would be 
considered appropriate, and if so, under what circumstances would such 
restrictions be appropriate? What restrictions should the Commission 
prohibit or permit?
    94. The Infrastructure Act requires the Commission to promulgate 
rules to protect consumers from any inappropriate restrictions by a 
participating provider on the ability of a consumer to switch 
participating providers other than a requirement that the customer 
return customer premises equipment provided by the participating 
provider. The Bureau seeks comment on what constitutes an inappropriate 
restriction of a consumer's ability to switch participating providers? 
Should the Commission prohibit providers from seeking to recover any 
discounts passed through to the household if the provider is unable to 
claim the household as a result of the transfer? Should an attempt or 
threat to recover the discount be considered an inappropriate 
restriction on the consumer's ability to switch providers? What 
restrictions should the Commission prohibit or permit? Have there been 
any practices by providers in the Lifeline or EBB Programs that have 
the effect of restricting a consumer from transferring their benefit to 
another provider? For example, should the Commission require that a 
provider offer a way for the customer to de-enroll online and also 
provide sufficient customer care representatives to respond to 
customers' requests or calls within a certain time (e.g., 30 minutes)? 
Should failure to provide reasonable customer care operations be 
considered a sufficient reason to delist the provider?
    95. Additionally, the Infrastructure Act requires that the 
Commission promulgate rules related to unjust and unreasonable acts or 
practices that undermine the purpose, intent, or integrity of the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. The Bureau seeks comment on what 
additional consumer protection measures the Commission should enact to 
protect prospective and existing program participants. For example, to 
ensure that eligible households receive their ACP-supported service 
without delay, should the Commission require that providers enroll 
eligible households or transfer their benefit within a set time after 
the subscriber provides affirmative consent to enroll with the provider 
and that failure to do so constitutes an unjust and unreasonable 
practice? The Bureau seeks comment on what steps the Commission should 
take to ensure that providers pass through the Affordable Connectivity 
Program discount to subscribers. The Bureau also proposes to prohibit 
providers from unreasonably delaying the application of Affordable 
Connectivity Program discounts to subscribers' bills.
    96. The Bureau also seeks comment on how USAC and the Commission 
can best address provider misconduct to avoid consumers being subject 
to potential fraudulent activity that could or may have already 
occurred. What is the best method to notify the public of any such 
conduct? How can the Commission address circumstances where an 
unauthorized provider holds itself out to consumers as a participating 
provider in the Affordable Connectivity Program? How should the 
Commission treat misconduct by providers authorized to participate in 
the Affordable Connectivity Program? Should the Commission have 
requirements for how the Affordable Connectivity Program is advertised 
and promoted, with remedies for violations of those requirements? The 
Bureau further proposes that failure to provide the service that is 
advertised and promoted shall be considered a violation of ACP program 
rules. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals and other 
protections the Commission should consider based on commenters' 
experiences with the EBB and Lifeline Programs.
    97. The Bureau next seeks comment on the disclosures and consumer 
consent providers participating in the Affordable Connectivity Program 
should be required to make before enrolling consumers in the program. 
In the EBB Program, for example, the Commission required participating 
providers to make several disclosures to their customers and to obtain 
their consent before enrolling them in the program. Specifically, 
providers are required to disclose to an existing subscriber prior to 
enrollment that the EBB Program is a government program that reduces 
the customer's broadband internet access service bill, is temporary in 
nature, that the household will be subject to the provider's 
undiscounted rates and general terms and conditions at the end of the 
program if they continue to receive service, that the household may 
obtain broadband service supported by the EBB Program from any 
participating provider of its choosing, and that the household may 
transfer its EBB Program benefit to another provider at any time. 
Additionally, Lifeline enrollees must opt in or affirmatively request 
enrollment in the EBB Program.
    98. For the Affordable Connectivity Program, the Bureau proposes 
requiring that providers make similar disclosures

[[Page 74055]]

to all consumers before enrolling them in the program. The Bureau 
proposes that the disclosures describe that the Affordable Connectivity 
Program is a government program that reduces the customer's broadband 
service bill up to the maximum benefit amount for that household, and 
that the household would be subject to the undiscounted service rate 
and generally applicable terms and conditions upon de-enrollment from 
the program and/or at the program's end. Given that the Affordable 
Connectivity Program is a longer term program compared to the EBB 
Program, the Bureau seeks comment on what the disclosure should state 
about the Affordable Connectivity Program's length that would be useful 
and informative for the household. The Bureau also proposes that the 
disclosure notify the household of its ability to file a complaint 
against its provider through the Commission's Consumer Complaint Center 
and that a provider may disconnect the household's ACP-supported 
service for non-payment as described in the Infrastructure Act. If the 
Commission adopts a recertification requirement for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program, should the disclosure advise households of that 
as well? The Bureau also proposes that households be notified that they 
can apply the ACP benefit to any broadband service offering of the 
participating provider, at the same terms available to households that 
are not eligible for ACP-supported service. The Bureau seeks comment on 
these disclosures and ask what other information is essential for a 
household to know about the Affordable Connectivity Program and the 
rights of consumers under the program when enrolling with a provider? 
As is required in the EBB Program, the Bureau proposes to require 
participating providers to collect and retain documentation 
demonstrating that the household was provided these disclosures before 
enrolling with the provider. The Bureau seeks comment on what types of 
documentation providers should retain to demonstrate compliance with 
notice and consent requirements. What should constitute proof of opt-in 
or affirmative consent?
    99. The EBB Program rules also require participating providers to 
collect and retain documentation that the provider, before enrolling an 
existing subscriber in the EBB Program, gave the subscriber notice, 
among other things, that they may transfer their EBB Program benefit to 
another provider at any time. The EBB Program rules further require 
that service providers ``obtain, from each new and existing subscriber, 
consent to transmit the subscriber's information'' to the NLAD. Sec.  
54.1606(d)(2) of the Commission's rules also prohibits providers from 
providing EBB-supported service or claiming support for a consumer that 
is currently receiving an EBB-supported service if the consumer is not 
``seeking to transfer his or her Emergency Broadband Benefit.'' 
However, some providers report that households enrolled in the EBB 
Program are being transferred to new providers perhaps even without the 
household's consent or knowledge of the transfer or its effect on the 
household's existing service. The Bureau seeks comment on EBB 
participating providers' experience with transfers of households 
between providers in the EBB Program. Are there restrictions or 
requirements the Commission should implement to ensure that a household 
has fully consented to transfer its benefit at the time of transfer? 
Should the Commission consider limiting the number of times a household 
can transfer its benefit per month in order to assist providers in 
managing the application of the discount on their subscriber's ACP-
supported service? Is there some other metric or benchmark by which the 
Commission can determine if or when to impose an appropriate limitation 
on transfers? Should the Commission require that households 
independently verify a request to transfer? How should such 
verification take place? How will the Commission balance these 
limitations with the importance of allowing households freedom to move 
between providers? What is the harm, if any, of households switching 
between participating providers, given the importance of household 
choice in selecting the preferred provider? The Bureau also seeks 
comment on its proposal to require participating providers, before 
transferring-in a household, to clearly disclose in easily understood 
language that the household will be transferred and that the ACP 
benefit will now be applied to the transfer-in provider's service.
    100. In addition to a disclosure requirement, the Bureau proposes 
that participating providers seeking to enroll any subscriber in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program must obtain that household's 
affirmative consent after the household has reviewed the program 
disclosures and before the provider can enroll the household in the 
program. The Bureau also proposes that such consent must be obtained by 
a provider performing a transfer transaction for a subscriber already 
enrolled in the program. How should the new provider record and 
document the transfer request? How should notice of a transfer be 
communicated to the household? Should providers be required to provide 
written notice to the household that it has been transferred and 
enrolled in the program with the new provider? Should providers be 
required to confirm the household's transfer request before and/or 
after initiating the transfer? Should providers be required to certify 
that all transfers completed by the provider are bona fide, requested 
by the household, and made pursuant to program rules? As in the EBB 
Program, the Bureau proposes to require providers to obtain a record of 
this affirmative consent from the household and to make such 
documentation available to the Commission and USAC upon request and in 
a timely manner. The Bureau proposes that such documentation clearly 
identify subscriber information, the date consent was given, and the 
method of consent. The Bureau seeks comment on what form such consent 
should take. In the EBB and Lifeline Programs, a subscriber's oral 
consent is an acceptable form of consent. For the Affordable 
Connectivity Program, should the Commission consider requiring 
providers to obtain written consent from a subscriber prior to 
transferring or enrolling the subscriber rather than allowing oral 
consent? The Bureau also proposes to prohibit a participating provider 
from linking consent to enroll in the Affordable Connectivity Program 
with some other action or program, or from automatically enrolling a 
subscriber based on information provided by the subscriber for some 
other purpose. For example, the Bureau proposes that participating 
providers be required to obtain consent for participation in the 
Lifeline program, the EBB Program, and the Affordable Connectivity 
Program separately. The Bureau also seeks comment on a proposal to 
prohibit providers from requiring a consumer to accept a connected 
device in order to enroll with the provider.
    101. Moreover, the Bureau seeks comment on when providers can begin 
to obtain a subscriber's consent to enroll in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. Similar to the approach in the EBB Program, the 
Bureau proposes that only providers with an election notice for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program fully processed by USAC can provide 
disclosures and collect consents from subscribers regarding their 
interest in enrolling in the Affordable Connectivity Program. The 
Bureau seeks comment on

[[Page 74056]]

this proposal. What else should the Commission consider to protect 
consumers from being unwittingly enrolled in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program or transferring their ACP benefit? The Bureau 
seeks comment on these proposals.
    102. The EBB Program Order also requires providers to collect an 
affirmative opt-in from EBB households before they can be charged ``an 
amount higher than they would pay under the full EBB Program 
reimbursement amount permitted'' by the program's rules. The Bureau 
proposes that the Commission adopt a similar requirement for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. The Bureau seeks comment on what 
notice and opt-in requirements are necessary to protect households from 
unexpected charges and to prevent providers from providing unwanted and 
undiscounted broadband service to low-income consumers. Given that the 
Affordable Connectivity Program is expected to be a longer-term 
program, the Bureau seeks comment on when, during a household's 
participation in the program, providers should be required to obtain 
the affirmative consent from the households to continue providing the 
household broadband service after the end of the program and to charge 
it a rate higher than what it would pay if it were receiving the full 
discount permitted under rules for the Affordable Connectivity Program. 
Does collecting such consent from households at the time of enrollment 
fully inform households and adequately protect them from unexpected 
charges? If providers are permitted to collect consent at the time of 
enrollment to continue service after the program end date, how should 
providers be required to give notice to consumers before raising the 
price of the service? If the Commission were to allow this affirmative 
opt-in to be collected at the time of enrollment, the Bureau proposes 
that providers be prohibited from imposing, as a condition of 
enrollment, an affirmative opt-in to continue receiving service from 
the provider after the end of the program, or de-enrollment. In other 
words, the Bureau proposes that households should be permitted to 
decline to provide this opt-in at the time of enrollment. The Bureau 
seeks comment on these issues.
    103. The Bureau recognizes that providers will need time to prepare 
the necessary disclosures and ensure they have mechanisms in place for 
obtaining and capturing a consumer's affirmative consent before 
enrolling the household in the program. The Bureau seeks comment on the 
time that providers need to make changes to their disclosure and 
consent mechanisms for purposes of the Affordable Connectivity Program. 
What would be the earliest date that providers could make these changes 
and be ready to enroll new subscribers in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program? Is there a concern that if providers may be unable to develop 
required disclosures and consent mechanisms in time for the launch of 
the Affordable Connectivity Program, providers may delay enrolling 
households until those systems are in place to ensure that enrollment 
of consumers is compliant with program rules?
    104. The Infrastructure Act also requires participating providers 
to notify all consumers who either subscribe to or renew a subscription 
to an internet service offering about the Affordable Connectivity 
Program and how to enroll. The Bureau seeks comment on this 
requirement. What does it mean to ``renew'' a subscription for the 
purposes of this requirement? What are effective methods or best 
practices providers should employ to ensure that such notifications 
occur? Should the Commission, for example, require providers to certify 
when they submit claims for reimbursement that they have provided such 
notifications to the households? What, if anything, should the 
Commission require of participating providers to ensure their 
subscriber base is informed about the Affordable Connectivity Program? 
Should the notification about the existence of the Affordable 
Connectivity Program be provided in the consumer's preferred language? 
What policies or practices should the Commission enact to monitor 
compliance with this statutory obligation? The Bureau seeks comment on 
whether providers will have adequate time to train their customer 
service representatives and prepare their systems in order to provide 
the required information to consumers on the December 31, 2021 
effective date of the Affordable Connectivity Program.
    105. Pursuant to the Infrastructure Act, the Commission must 
collaborate with relevant Federal agencies to ensure a household that 
participates in any program that qualifies it for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program is provided with information about the Affordable 
Connectivity Program, including enrollment information. The Bureau 
seeks comment on how the Commission could collaborate with such 
agencies. The Bureau also seeks comment on how state and federal 
agencies that operate qualifying programs can best support eligible 
households. Is there a role for these agencies in educating qualifying 
consumers about the Affordable Connectivity Program? The Bureau also 
seeks comment on what information about the Affordable Connectivity 
Program the Commission should distribute to households participating in 
a qualifying program.
    106. The Infrastructure Act also requires the Commission to 
``ensure relevant Federal agencies update their Systems of Records 
Notices'' to ensure that a household participating in a qualifying 
program is provided information about the Affordable Connectivity 
Program. The Bureau seeks comment on how, and whether the Commission 
has the authority, to compel other agencies to update their System of 
Records Notices to the extent required to ensure that a household 
participating in an ACP-qualifying program receives information about 
the program. The Bureau seeks comment on the steps the Commission could 
take to ensure that other agencies update their System of Record 
Notices to allow the use of personally identifiable information in 
order to share information about the Affordable Connectivity Program.
    107. The Infrastructure Act also provides that the Commission may 
conduct outreach efforts to encourage households to enroll in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. The Act permits the Commission to 
facilitate consumer research, conduct focus groups, engage in paid 
media campaigns, provide grants to outreach partners, and provide an 
orderly transition for participating providers and consumers from the 
EBB Program to the Affordable Connectivity Program. How should the 
Commission utilize these statutorily provided tools to inform the 
public about the program? What topics should the Commission include in 
consumer research and/or focus groups? What methods of consumer 
research are proving effective in the current pandemic environment?
    108. While the Commission administers various types of federal 
financial assistance programs, it does not have experience with the 
unique statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to grant 
programs. As such, the Bureau seeks comment on considerations 
applicable to standing up a grant program in support of consumer 
outreach. For example, should grants be used as part of the 
Commission's first consumer outreach efforts under the modified program 
or might grants instead be best utilized as part of the longer term 
program management?
    109. The Bureau also seeks comment on the ability to engage in paid 
media campaigns. What types of paid media

[[Page 74057]]

will be most effective in reaching eligible households? Will social 
media and other types of online advertising be effective? How should 
the Commission allocate funding for paid media? Are there effective 
media strategies developed or used by stakeholders to promote the EBB 
Program that could inform the Commission's efforts?
    110. The Infrastructure Act also permits the Commission to provide 
grants to outreach partners. The Bureau first seeks comment on any 
considerations specific to starting a grant program for consumer 
outreach partners. Should the Commission itself provide such grants? 
What types of outreach activities should the grants support? The Bureau 
seeks comment on the scope and objectives of the outreach plans. What 
outreach gaps were identified during the EBB Program that grant funding 
could be effective in addressing? What criteria should the Commission 
use to review and accept grant proposals? What reporting requirements 
should the Commission establish for grant recipients? Should the 
Commission impose restrictions on who may participate as an outreach 
partner? Should the Commission institute a cap on the individual grant 
amount and if so how much should that funding cap be? What expenses 
should be allowed under the grant program? Should the Commission allow 
grant funding to cover personnel costs, such as salaries, and other 
financial benefits? Should the Commission limit the activities and 
administrative expenses that grant funds can be used to cover? How much 
of the total funding amount should the Commission set aside for grants 
to outreach partners? What safeguards should the Commission consider to 
prevent fraud and waste in a potential ACP grant program? Grant 
application processes and required reporting can be burdensome and may 
discourage smaller, locally focused organizations from applying. How 
can the Commission balance the need for grant oversight with the desire 
to make the grant program within reach for non-profits that are best 
positioned to serve their local communities?
    111. In addition to the examples listed in the Infrastructure Act, 
are there other tools the Commission should consider utilizing to 
increase the effectiveness of program outreach efforts? Effective 
provider outreach and implementation of the Affordable Connectivity 
Program will also encourage program enrollment. Should the Commission 
share consumer feedback on the EBB Program and the results of ACP 
consumer research with providers to inform their outreach and 
implementation efforts? Are there legal or policy considerations that 
might impact sharing such information with providers? How can the 
Commission best share this consumer feedback and research results? Are 
there lessons learned or effective strategies developed or used by 
stakeholders, partners or providers to promote the EBB Program that 
should inform the Commission's ACP outreach? What are best practices 
the Commission should employ in its outreach efforts? The 
Infrastructure Act also provides an amount of funding appropriated to 
the Commission for the Affordable Connectivity Program. The Bureau 
seeks comment on how the Commission should allocate funding to these 
outreach projects. In the absence of funds appropriated expressly for 
this outreach, should the Commission allocate some of the 
administrative funds permitted by the statute to this outreach? How 
much of the funding should the Commission set aside for outreach?
    112. The Infrastructure Act requires participating providers, in 
collaboration with state agencies, public interest groups, and non-
profit organizations, to carry out public awareness campaigns in their 
areas of service that highlight the value and benefits of broadband 
internet access service, and the existence of the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. The Bureau seeks comment on the best methods to 
publicize the availability of broadband services and connected devices 
supported by the Affordable Connectivity Program. What are the most 
effective means of publicizing the benefit to the communities most in 
need? The Bureau also seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
require providers to market the Affordable Connectivity Program in the 
languages spoken in the areas they serve. The Bureau proposes that 
providers be required to include in promotional materials how consumers 
can enroll in the program, including how consumers can best contact the 
provider in order to enroll in the Affordable Connectivity Program. The 
Bureau seeks comment on these proposals. The Bureau also seeks comment 
on the most effective ways providers can collaborate with state 
agencies, non-profit organizations, and public interest groups to 
promote the Affordable Connectivity Program.
    113. The Bureau next seeks comment on an advertising requirement. 
The Lifeline program requires providers to ``publicize the availability 
of Lifeline service in a manner reasonably designed to reach those 
likely to qualify for the service.'' Specifically, providers must 
``[i]ndicate on all materials describing the service, using easily 
understood language, that it is a Lifeline service, that Lifeline is a 
government assistance program, the service is non-transferable, only 
eligible consumers may enroll in the program, and the program is 
limited to one discount per household.'' The Bureau proposes that the 
Commission adopt a similar advertising requirement for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. The Bureau seeks comment on requiring 
participating providers to indicate on all materials describing the 
Affordable Connectivity Program the eligibility requirements for 
consumer participation; that the Affordable Connectivity Program is 
non-transferrable and limited to one discount per household; a list of 
qualifying connected devices, if any, with device specifications; the 
provider's customer service telephone number, which must be prominently 
displayed on all promotional materials and on the provider's website; 
and that the Affordable Connectivity Program is a federal government 
benefit program operated by the Federal Communications Commission and, 
upon its conclusion, or when a household is no longer eligible, 
customers will be subject to the provider's regular rates, terms, and 
conditions. The Bureau seeks comment on its proposal to require 
providers to clearly display on their website the monetary charges to 
the customer, and the available upload/download speeds and data caps 
for its internet service offerings. What other information should 
providers be required to include in their ACP-related marketing 
materials? The Bureau also seeks comment on whether there are any 
marketing practices in the EBB Program that were misleading to 
customers.
    114. The Infrastructure Act provides that the Commission may issue 
guidance, forms, instructions, publications, or technical assistance as 
necessary or appropriate to carry out the Affordable Connectivity 
Program. This authorization includes actions intended to ensure that 
``programs, projects, or activities'' are completed in a timely and 
effective manner. The Bureau seeks comment on the meaning of this 
provision. The Bureau proposes that this provision suggests that the 
Commission should continue to work with USAC and others to ensure that 
the administrator, providers, and consumers have the tools necessary to 
meaningfully implement and participate in this program. The Bureau 
seeks comment on what guidance from the Commission would be helpful for 
providers. What resources would be helpful to consumers looking to 
participate in the

[[Page 74058]]

program? Are there aspects of the current EBB Program enrollment 
process that need additional explanation or more detailed instructions? 
Similarly, what resources would help providers looking to participate 
in the program? For the EBB Program, USAC offered provider training and 
office hours, added training materials to the provider-focused website, 
and sent bulletins to providers on system changes and new enrollment 
features. Nevertheless, would additional explanation or more detailed 
instructions on program process or systems help providers to better 
serve their program eligible customers? How else can the Commission 
ensure that this program is implemented effectively?
    115. In the EBB Program Order, the Commission instructed USAC to 
develop a tracker that reported on disbursements and program enrollment 
to allow providers and the public to monitor the balance of the 
Emergency Broadband Connectivity Fund and prepare for the end of the 
program. The tracker is available to the public on USAC's website and 
includes data on EBB Program enrollment nationwide, by state, and by 
three-digit ZIP code areas that is updated weekly, and the total claims 
made by providers each month. To provide more information about where 
subscribers are enrolling in the EBB Program, the Commission released 
more granular enrollment data that included enrollee demographic 
information, such as age breakdown, eligibility category, type of 
broadband service, and enrollment numbers by five-digit ZIP code areas, 
all of which are updated monthly. The Bureau seeks comment on how 
stakeholders used the data available on the EBB Enrollments and Claims 
Tracker and whether enrollment and claims data regarding the Affordable 
Connectivity Program would be similarly useful. Should the Commission 
consider any modifications to the type or format of the public data 
reports, as well as the frequency of updates, for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program? In suggesting data to report publicly, commenters 
should consider the limitations on the Commission's ability to make 
available personal identifiable information on the households enrolled 
in the program.
    116. The Bureau also seeks comment on the performance measures the 
Commission should use in determining the success of the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. How should success in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program be defined? The Commission, for example, set three program 
goals for the Lifeline program: (1) Ensuring the availability of voice 
and broadband service for low-income Americans; (2) ensuring the 
affordability of broadband service for low-income Americans; and (3) 
minimizing the contribution burden on consumers and businesses. In the 
2016 Lifeline Order, 81 FR 33025, May 23, 2016, the Commission stated 
that it will measure its progress toward achieving the affordability 
prong of the goal by ``measuring the extent to which voice and 
broadband service expenditures exceed two percent of low income 
consumers' disposable household income as compared to the next highest 
group.'' The Bureau seeks comment on the goals the Commission should 
adopt for the Affordable Connectivity Program. How should the 
Commission consider the concepts of broadband affordability, adoption, 
and availability for low-income households? The Bureau also seeks 
comment on the extent to which the Commission should measure the cost 
effectiveness of administering the Affordable Connectivity Program.
    117. Should the Commission track how the Affordable Connectivity 
Program is delivering value to low-income consumers? If so, how can 
this be measured? Should the Commission consider evaluating take-up 
rates in communities with low connectivity? Should service type or 
quality be considered in an analysis? Further, should the Commission 
seek to understand whether the Affordable Connectivity Program is 
expanding the market for broadband by enrolling subscribers with no 
existing broadband service as opposed to those that apply the subsidy 
to an existing plan? If so, what information should the Commission 
require that providers submit to understand this distinction? What 
additional measures of performance should the Commission consider, and 
what information might be requested from providers to measure 
performance? Should the Commission use participation rates to measure 
program performance? To calculate those participation rates, how should 
the Commission estimate the program eligible population, especially 
given the limitations in data collection due to the ongoing pandemic? 
Should data be collected on enrollees' current internet access when 
applying? If so, should this data be collected from providers or 
enrollees? What additional data are needed to accurately estimate ACP 
eligibility? The Bureau seeks comment on the availability of such data 
and recommended approaches for collection, such as requiring 
participating providers to submit household eligibility information. 
Should the Commission consider prioritizing reaching certain 
demographics of low-income consumers and develop targeted outreach? 
Should the Commission seek to collect additional demographic 
information about ACP subscribers and, if so, how can the burdens to 
consumers and providers be minimized? How might this information be 
used in measuring the success of the Affordable Connectivity Program? 
The Bureau seeks comment on whether the Commission should identify 
goals for this program and how the Commission can measure its success 
in meeting those goals. Should the success of the Affordable 
Connectivity Program be measured against Lifeline or the EBB Program? 
Given that Lifeline-eligible households will be eligible for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program, how should the Commission judge the 
concurrent performances of the two programs? Are there any additional 
data that Lifeline providers participating in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program can provide to the Commission that can be used to 
judge any substitution or complementarity between Lifeline and the 
Affordable Connectivity Program?
    118. Given that the Affordable Connectivity Program is anticipated 
to be a longer-term program than the EBB Program, what data should the 
Commission ask providers to submit to judge the efficacy of the 
Affordable Connectivity Program? The subsidy provided by the Affordable 
Connectivity Program is larger than that provided by the Lifeline 
program. As such, should the Commission ask ACP providers to submit 
summary statistics on subscribers' usage of plan features (e.g., mobile 
data usage) to gauge whether the Affordable Connectivity Program is 
providing value to households beyond what the Lifeline program offers? 
The Bureau also seeks comment on what data providers should submit 
regarding the service type a household is receiving. Currently, 
providers in the EBB Program indicate the type of service a household 
receives through the EBB Program. Should the Commission also ask ACP 
providers to indicate the service plan characteristics--such as upload 
and download speeds, data allowances, and co-payment--associated with a 
subscriber's service plan? If this information were required, what is 
an appropriate frequency (e.g., quarterly, semi-annually) for providers 
to submit such data on a recurring basis? Is there a method of 
submission that would

[[Page 74059]]

minimize burden on providers (e.g., via NLAD at the time of 
enrollment)?
    119. As explained in this document, the Infrastructure Act provides 
for a 60-day transition period for ``households that qualified'' for 
the EBB Program prior to the December 31, 2021 effective date, that 
would otherwise see a reduction in their benefit as a result of the 
changes made through the delayed amendments concerning the eligibility 
criteria and discount level for the Affordable Connectivity Program. 
During the transition period, the Bureau proposes that households 
enrolled in the EBB Program as of December 31, 2021 would not be 
required to submit a new application to enroll in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. However, before the end of the 60-day transition 
period, EBB-enrolled households that qualified for the EBB Program 
through eligibility criteria that are not applicable to the Affordable 
Connectivity Program will be required to demonstrate their eligibility 
to receive an ACP benefit after the transition period ends. The Bureau 
expects this requirement will affect only a small number of households 
currently enrolled in the EBB Program. The Bureau will provide guidance 
on the processes that this subset of EBB-enrolled households will need 
to complete in order to demonstrate eligibility to receive the ACP 
benefit after the transition period.
    120. The Bureau also proposes requiring all households seeking to 
participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program, including EBB-
enrolled households that are eligible for the Affordable Connectivity 
Program, to opt-in or affirmatively request enrollment in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. Moreover, the Bureau proposes to 
require EBB-enrolled households transitioning to the Affordable 
Connectivity Program that share an address with another ACP household 
to verify that they are only obtaining one ACP benefit per household, 
by either completing the one-per-household worksheet, or a similar 
process under a provider's approved alternative verification process. 
However, given that these EBB-enrolled households would have completed 
a worksheet for the EBB Program already, the Bureau proposes that such 
households may complete the worksheet for the Affordable Connectivity 
Program after the 60-day transition period if necessary. The Bureau 
seeks comment on this proposal and the timing for the confirmation of 
the household's compliance with the one-per-household requirement. The 
Bureau believes that these approaches for EBB Program-enrolled 
households transitioning to the Affordable Connectivity Program would 
best promote an orderly transition and minimize administrative burdens 
on participating households. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposed 
approaches.
    121. The Bureau next seeks comment on establishing a deadline by 
when EBB-enrolled households that are eligible for and intend to 
participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program must opt in or 
affirmatively request enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity Program 
after the end of the 60-day transition period. Would it be feasible to 
require EBB-enrolled households to opt in or request enrollment by the 
end of the transition period? Are there alternatives to requiring ACP 
opt-in that the Commission should consider for EBB-enrolled households 
that remain eligible for the Affordable Connectivity Program and 
previously consented to continue receiving service from their provider 
at the end of the EBB Program? Given that the Affordable Connectivity 
Program is a new program with a different benefit amount, the Bureau is 
concerned by the idea of allowing providers to rely on prior consent 
for the EBB Program for enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program. The Bureau also seeks comment on how to treat an EBB-enrolled 
household that remains eligible for the Affordable Connectivity Program 
but does not provide opt-in or affirmatively request enrollment to 
participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program by any deadline the 
Commission may adopt.
    122. The Bureau seeks comment on service provider notice 
requirements for EBB-enrolled households that transition to the 
Affordable Connectivity Program and would experience a change in their 
benefit level at the end of the 60-day transition period. Should the 
Commission require that participating providers issue notices to 
consumers with the same content as was contemplated for the 15-day and 
30-day end of EBB Program notices in the EBB Program rules, with 
modifications as necessary to comport with the Affordable Connectivity 
Program rules? The Bureau seeks to minimize the potential for consumer 
confusion, and seeks comment on when the rate change notices should be 
issued to these consumers. Would 30-days' notice be sufficient time to 
allow consumers to prepare for the reduced benefit amount under the 
Affordable Connectivity Program? Should the Commission adopt a uniform 
deadline for these consumer notices, such as 30 days before the end of 
the transition period, or should the timing of the notices coincide 
with consumer billing cycles? Would a single notice be sufficient to 
communicate any rate changes that occur as a result of the changed 
benefit amount under the ACP? Should the Commission require that the 
notices make clear that consumers can cancel their service before the 
rate change takes effect? Would it be sufficient for service providers 
to notify consumers of the expected rate change under the Affordable 
Connectivity Program via a bill message? The Bureau seeks comment on 
these ideas.
    123. The Infrastructure Act also contains language addressing a 
transition period for certain households. In particular, legislative 
text in the Delayed Amendments provides that, after December 31, 2021, 
an eligible household that was participating in the EBB Program on the 
date of enactment and that also qualifies for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program ``shall continue to have access to an affordable 
service offering.'' The Bureau seeks comment on this language and its 
relation to the 60-day transition period into the Affordable 
Connectivity Program for all households enrolled in the EBB Program 
starting on December 31, 2021. What is intended by the language 
providing that such households ``shall continue to have access to an 
affordable service offering''? What are the outer bounds on the period 
of time when such households shall no longer continue to have access? 
What is the purpose of the language limiting such households to those 
that were participating the EBB Program on the date of enactment?
    124. Database Connections for the Affordable Connectivity Program. 
Access to program databases for automated eligibility verification is 
essential to an optimal household application experience in the 
National Verifier. While the existing computer matching agreements 
(CMAs) allow USAC to continue utilizing the National Verifier's EBB 
Program connections for purposes of the Affordable Connectivity 
Program, accessing eligibility databases for WIC, a new eligibility 
program under the Affordable Connectivity Program, will likely require 
new or amended CMAs and interconnection security agreements with each 
of USAC and the Commission's state partners. Both USAC and the states 
will also need to undertake technical development to build those 
connections. The Bureau invites comment on these challenges and 
potential solutions to avoid delays in establishing eligibility 
database connections for the Affordable Connectivity Program.

[[Page 74060]]

    125. In addition, the Infrastructure Act contemplates data sharing 
with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), USDA and the 
Department of Education by requiring the Secretaries of those agencies 
to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with USAC to share National 
Verifier data and to begin sharing such data shortly after executing 
the Memorandum. The Bureau seeks comment on data maintained by these 
agencies that could be used by the National Verifier to speed 
enrollments in the Affordable Connectivity Program and combat program 
waste. In the case of USDA, the Bureau seeks comment on whether there 
is a centralized eligibility database for WIC data, which is 
administered at the state level. The National Verifier also has a 
number of current CMAs with state agencies permitting access to USDA 
SNAP participant data in those states. How should USAC and the USDA 
incorporate these existing CMAs into the Memorandum of Understanding? 
With respect to the Department of Education, Pell Grant recipients will 
be eligible to enroll in the Affordable Connectivity Program but, for 
the EBB Program, applications based on Pell Grant participation are 
subject to manual review. An automated connection with the Department 
of Education for Pell Grant data would improve the enrollment 
experience of Pell Grant recipients. Are there any legal barriers or 
other challenges that would prevent CMA access to Pell Grant data? 
Finally, with respect to the Memorandum of Understanding with HHS, USAC 
and the HHS agency Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have a 
current CMA permitting data sharing to qualify Medicaid recipients 
nationwide for Lifeline and the EBB Program. The Bureau seeks comment 
on whether other agencies within HHS would have any data that would 
benefit applicants for the Affordable Connectivity and Lifeline 
programs.
    126. The Bureau seeks comment on what considerations the Commission 
should include regarding the end of the Affordable Connectivity Program 
when the funding is fully expended. If establishing requirements for 
the sunset of the Affordable Connectivity Program, how can the 
Commission benefit from the rules already established for the wind-down 
of the EBB Program? The Bureau seeks comment on whether the Commission 
should delegate to the Bureau the responsibility for setting the 
requirements for the wind-down of the Affordable Connectivity Program. 
What notice requirements should the Commission consider for the wind-
down? How much notice should the Commission give to providers and 
households regarding the end of the program? How much notice will 
participating providers require in order to give adequate notice to 
households? The Commission and USAC have developed a projection 
forecasting the termination of the EBB Program. How best can the 
Commission forecast the end of the Affordable Connectivity Program?
    127. The Infrastructure Act leaves unchanged the requirement that 
the Commission adopt audit requirements to ensure that participating 
providers are in compliance with the program requirements and to 
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Moreover, within one year of the date 
of enactment of the Infrastructure Act, the Commission's Office of 
Inspector General shall conduct an audit of the disbursements to a 
representative sample of participating providers. As with the EBB 
Program, the Bureau proposes that the Commission delegate authority to 
the Office of Managing Director (OMD) to develop and implement an audit 
process of participating providers, for which it may obtain the 
assistance of third parties, including but not limited to USAC. Such 
audits would be in addition to any audits conducted by the Commission's 
Office of Inspector General. The Bureau seeks comment on the audit 
requirements and procedures to be used to test provider compliance with 
Affordable Connectivity Program rules, including whether ``spot 
checks'' of provider practices should be incorporated into those 
procedures. The Bureau also proposes adopting for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program the documentation retention requirements used in 
the EBB Program.
    128. In the EBB Program, the Commission directed USAC to conduct 
program integrity reviews of oversubscribed addresses, of a sample of 
households qualifying based on a member of their household's enrollment 
in a CEP school, and a sample of households enrolled through an 
alternative verification process, in addition to other areas as 
determined by the Bureau and USAC to deter waste, fraud, and abuse in 
the Program. The Bureau proposes that USAC also develop a plan and 
conduct program integrity reviews, subject to OMD and Bureau approval, 
to determine provider and consumer compliance with ACP program rules. 
The Bureau seeks comment on the areas that might be most at risk for 
non-compliance that should be the subject of a program integrity 
review.
    129. The Infrastructure Act leaves unchanged the declaration that a 
violation of section 904 or any regulation promulgated under that 
section ``shall be treated as violation of the Communications Act of 
1934 or a regulation promulgated under such Act.'' The Commission is 
compelled to enforce the section of the Infrastructure Act establishing 
the Affordable Connectivity Program and associated regulations ``in the 
same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, 
and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the 
Communications Act of 1934 were incorporated or made a part of this 
section.'' The Commission in the EBB Program Order stated that it would 
use its existing statutorily permitted enforcement powers to conduct 
investigations and impose administrative forfeitures, and would apply 
the Commission's suspension and debarment rules applicable to USF 
participants to EBB Program providers. Moreover, as discussed in this 
document, the Infrastructure Act expressly granted the Commission the 
authority to impose forfeiture penalties to enforce compliance, and the 
Bureau proposes that the Commission use its existing, statutorily 
permitted enforcement powers to initiate investigations of program rule 
violations for the Affordable Connectivity Program. The Bureau repeats 
here its request for comment on this proposal. Additionally, the 
Commission currently has pending a suspension and debarment proceeding 
proposing rules that would be applicable to conduct under the USF 
programs, Telecommunications Relay Services and the National Deaf-Blind 
Equipment Distribution Program. The Bureau seeks comment on whether an 
extension of the suspension and debarment rules proposed in that 
proceeding (when finalized) to the Affordable Connectivity Program, as 
well as any ACP grant program for outreach partners, would be desirable 
to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and if so, what modifications (if 
any) of such proposed suspension and debarment rules should be 
considered for the grant program.
    130. The Infrastructure Act leaves unchanged the safe harbor 
provision in the Consolidated Appropriated Act stating that the 
Commission may not enforce a violation of the Act using sections 501, 
502, or 503 of the Communications Act, or any rules of the Commission 
promulgated under such sections, if a participating provider 
demonstrates that it relied in good faith

[[Page 74061]]

on information provided to such provider to make any verification 
required by section 904(b)(2). Section 904(b)(2) imposes a duty on 
providers to verify whether a household is eligible to receive 
discounted service and a connected device through the program, and the 
Commission in the EBB Program Order established that the safe harbor 
will apply to providers who use the National Verifier for eligibility 
determinations or any alternative verification process approved by the 
Commission. The Commission provided that the safe harbor applies to 
providers who act in good faith with respect to the eligibility 
verification processes and that the Commission has extensive experience 
evaluating the good faith actions of regulated entities. The Bureau 
proposes that the Commission adopt this application of the safe harbor 
adopted in the EBB Program Order to providers participating in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program and that providers that reasonably rely 
on documentation regarding eligibility determinations provided by 
eligible households or an eligibility determination from the National 
Verifier will be able to avail themselves of this statutory safe harbor 
with respect to their compliance with the Affordable Connectivity 
Program rules. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
    131. Section 904 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, as 
amended by the Infrastructure Act, authorizes the Commission to use the 
services USAC to administer the Affordable Connectivity Fund, including 
developing and processing reimbursements and distributing funds to 
participating providers. Based on USAC's extensive experience 
administering both the Lifeline and EBB Programs, the Bureau proposes 
using USAC to administer the Affordable Connectivity Program. Given the 
challenging timeframe provided in the Act for the implementation of the 
Affordable Connectivity Program, the Bureau proposes that relying on 
USAC as the administrator would best facilitate the orderly 
implementation and administration of the Affordable Connectivity 
Program and would also minimize provider and consumer confusion. The 
Bureau seeks comment on the use of the USAC administered systems, 
including, but not limited to, the Lifeline National Verifier, National 
Lifeline Accountability Database, Representative Accountability 
Database, and the Lifeline Claims System for administering the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. The Bureau also seeks comment on using 
established USAC functions and processes for administering the 
Affordable Connectivity Program, including, but not limited to, call 
centers, provider and communications outreach and training, program 
integrity reviews, audits, assisting the Commission in conducting its 
review, and data services. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal. 
In addition, how should the Commission measure USAC's performance in 
administering the Affordable Connectivity Program? What aspects of 
USAC's administration of the EBB Program were most effective from the 
perspective of the providers and applicants, and what aspects may need 
improvement going forward?
    132. Given that the Affordable Connectivity Program is expected to 
be a longer-term program than the EBB Program, the Bureau proposes that 
the Commission require providers to submit to USAC annual officer 
certifications, under penalty of perjury, relating to the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. The Bureau further proposes that each officer 
must certify that the participating provider has policies and 
procedures in place to ensure compliance with ACP rules. The Bureau 
seeks comment on the contents of this certification and feedback on 
whether such certifications would help guard against waste, fraud, and 
abuse in the Affordable Connectivity Program. This practice is 
currently used across the Commission's Universal Service Fund programs 
through the use of FCC Form 481 that requires providers participating 
in High Cost and Lifeline to annually certify their compliance with 
those programs' rules. Pursuant to Sec.  54.416 of the Commission's 
rules, ETCs must also certify to their compliance with Lifeline program 
rules and that ETCs have policies and procedures in place to ensure 
that their Lifeline subscribers are eligible for Lifeline service. The 
Bureau seeks comment on these ideas.
    133. Administrative Cap. The Infrastructure Act continues to make 
available to the Commission no more than 2% of the Affordable 
Connectivity Fund (formerly called the Emergency Broadband Connectivity 
Fund) for the administration of the Affordable Connectivity Program. 
The Infrastructure Act further appropriates an additional $14.2 billion 
(in addition to the amounts previously appropriated under the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021) into the Affordable Connectivity 
Fund. Thus, the overall cap on administrative costs is $348 million 
(some of which has already been expended for the EBB Program). In the 
EBB Program Order, the Commission directed OMD and USAC to re-evaluate 
the program's budget to determine if any funds budgeted for 
administrative expenses should instead be used to fund reimbursements. 
Should the Commission similarly require a re-examination of the 
administrative funds and budget in the Affordable Connectivity Program 
to determine if any funds can be used for reimbursements? If so, at 
what intervals should the re-evaluation take place? In the EBB Program 
Order, the Commission also required that USAC regularly report to OMD 
USAC's program budget for the administration of the EBB Program. The 
Bureau proposes that the Commission require similar regular reporting 
from USAC on its projected budget for the administration of the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. The Bureau seeks comment on this 
proposal.
    134. Red Light and Do Not Pay. To implement the requirements of the 
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, the Commission has established 
what is commonly referred to as the red light rule. Under the red light 
rule, the Commission will not take action on applications or other 
requests by an entity that is found to owe debts to the Commission 
until that debt is fully paid or resolved. In the EBB Program, the 
Commission waived the red light rule given the limited duration and 
emergency nature of that Program. The red light rule is not waived for 
the Lifeline program or other longstanding programs such as the 
Telecommunications Relay Service. In contrast to the EBB Program, the 
Bureau proposes to apply the red light rule to the Affordable 
Connectivity Program and thus ACP providers would be subject to the red 
light rule. The Bureau seeks comment on this approach.
    135. In the EBB Program Order, the Commission explained that 
pursuant to the requirements of the Payment Integrity Information Act 
of 2019 (PIIA), the Commission is required to ensure that a thorough 
review of available databases with relevant information on eligibility 
occurs to determine program or award eligibility and to prevent 
improper payments before the release of any federal funds. To that end, 
the Commission explained that to meet this requirement, the Commission 
will make use of the Do Not Pay system administered by the Department 
of Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service and if a check of the system 
reveals that a provider cannot be paid, the Commission will withhold 
issuing commitments and payments to that provider. The Commission 
further explained that USAC may work with the EBB Program provider to 
give it an opportunity to resolve the listing in the

[[Page 74062]]

Do Not Pay system, however the provider will be responsible for working 
with the relevant agency to correct its information before payment can 
be made by the Commission. The Commission also noted that providers not 
registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) may elect to 
participate in the EBB Program, enroll eligible households and receive 
program commitments, but active SAM registration is required in order 
to receive payment. The Bureau seeks comment on the payment 
administration process used for the EBB Program and on providers' 
experiences with the payment process as may be relevant for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program.
    136. In enacting the Affordable Connectivity Program, the 
Infrastructure Act did not make any substantive changes to section 
904(f), which permits the Commission to apply rules contained in part 
54 of the Commission's rules to the EBB Program. In addition to the 
specific instances identified in this document, the Bureau seeks 
comment on applying the regulations contained in subpart E of part 54 
to the Affordable Connectivity Program, to the extent that those rules 
do not conflict with the Affordable Connectivity Program parameters 
established by the Infrastructure Act. For example, the Bureau seeks 
comment on what definitions in section 54.400 should also be applied 
the Affordable Connectivity Program. Should the Commission include 
subscriber eligibility determination and certification rules as found 
in section 54.410? The Bureau also seeks comment on whether regulations 
in subpart H of the Commission's rules, which pertain to USAC's 
functions as administrator of the USF, should be applied to the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. The Bureau proposes to apply sections 
54.702(c) of the Commission's rules prohibiting USAC from making 
policy, interpreting unclear provisions of the statute or rules, or 
interpreting the intent of Congress. What other provisions of subpart 
H, would, if applied, facilitate the effective administration of the 
Affordable Connectivity Program? Alternatively, the Bureau seeks 
comment on whether the Commission should consider adopting distinct 
rules for the Affordable Connectivity Program rather than relying on 
definitions and processes from Lifeline-specific rules. What are the 
benefits of establishing ACP-specific rules rather than cross-
referencing and relying on Lifeline rules? Finally, the Bureau urges 
commenters to provide feedback on the EBB Program and how the 
Commission can best use the experiences from the EBB Program to inform 
its rulemaking with respect to the Affordable Connectivity Program. The 
Bureau invites providers, consumer groups, EBB subscribers, other 
governmental agencies, non-profit organizations, and community 
institutions to share with us in this proceeding their experiences in 
navigating the EBB Program and what the Commission should consider when 
establishing rules for the Affordable Connectivity Program.
    137. The Infrastructure Act does not modify section 904(h), which 
exempts the Commission from certain rulemaking requirements under the 
APA and the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Because section 904(h) 
applies these exemptions to regulations promulgated to implement the 
EBB Program (i.e., under section 904(c) of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act), the Bureau understands these exemptions extend to 
the implementation of amendments that modify the EBB Program, with the 
possible exception of those consumer protection provisions for which 
the Infrastructure Act specifically requires the Commission to 
promulgate rules in accordance with the APA. Furthermore, the PRA in 
its ordinary operation includes statutory comment periods that 
encompass several months, which cannot be completed consistent with the 
deadlines in the Infrastructure Act. Exempting this rulemaking 
proceeding from the APA's rulemaking requirements is also essential for 
the timely promulgation of final rules in advance of the implementation 
and outreach efforts that will be required for the eventual launch of 
this new program. The Bureau seeks comment on these interpretations.
    138. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended, requires that an agency prepare an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis ``[w]henever an agency is required by [5 U.S.C. 
553], or any other law, to publish general notice of proposed 
rulemaking for any proposed rule.'' Pursuant to the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, as extended under the Infrastructure Act, section 
553 generally does not apply to the rulemaking proceeding implementing 
the Affordable Connectivity Program. Furthermore, to the extent notice 
and comment under the APA is otherwise required for those consumer 
protection regulations that are required under section 904(b)(11), the 
Commission will either find good cause to dispense with such notice and 
comment or will subsequently issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that 
will include an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Accordingly, 
no Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required for in this 
Public Notice.

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    139. Pursuant to section 904(h)(2) of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, as extended under the Infrastructure Act, the 
collection of information sponsored or conducted under the rules 
proposed in this Public Notice is deemed not to constitute a collection 
of information for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501-3521.
    140. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance 
digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with 
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who 
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any 
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. 
Specifically, the Bureau seeks comment on how its proposals may promote 
or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, 
as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

Federal Communications Commission.
Cheryl Callahan,
Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2021-27775 Filed 12-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P