Affordable Connectivity Program, 8385-8390 [2022-02908]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8385-8390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02908]



Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 8385]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket No. 21-450; FCC 22-2; FRS 71007]


Affordable Connectivity Program

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission or FCC) seeks comment on proposals for increasing awareness 
of and participation in the Affordable Connectivity Program and for an 
enhanced affordable connectivity benefit for consumers in certain high-
cost areas.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before March 16, 2022 
and reply comments on or before April 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: All filings should refer to WC Docket No. 21-450. Comments 
may be filed by any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Electronic filers: You may file comments electronically by 
accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at 
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings.
    [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 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. Parties 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. See FCC Provides Further 
Instructions Regarding Submission of Confidential Materials, Public 
Notice, DA 20-361, 35 FCC Rcd 2973 (OMD, March 31, 2000), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-361A1_Rcd.pdf. All filings must 
be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     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.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    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.
    Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules, 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 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 consists 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 
Written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the 
Electronic Comment Filing System and must be filed in their native 
format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this 
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Wu, Attorney Advisor, 
Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 
at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in WC Docket No. 21-450, 
FCC 22-2, adopted January 14, 2022, and released January 20, 2022. The 
full text of this document is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-2A1.pdf. The Report and Order that was adopted 
concurrently with this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is to be published 
elsewhere in the Federal Register.

I. Introduction

    1. The Commission seeks comment on aspects of the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act) and proposals for 
increasing awareness of and participation in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. Specifically the Commission seeks comment on 
three sets of issues: (1) Structuring an outreach grant program; (2) 
establishing a potential pilot program focused on increasing the 
awareness and enrollment of eligible households participating in 
Federal Public Housing Assistance Programs in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program; and (3) implementing a mechanism for determining 
the application of the enhanced benefit for those serving high-cost 
areas, as to be determined by the National Telecommunications 
Information Administration (NTIA).

A. Outreach Grant Program

    2. Grant Program. The Affordable Connectivity Program will rely 
heavily on outreach efforts to make eligible households aware of and 
informed about the program. As evidenced in the record, certain 
segments of eligible households that would benefit from the program 
currently have low participation rates. The Infrastructure Act provides 
that the Commission may conduct various outreach efforts to encourage 
households to enroll in the Affordable Connectivity Program. The notice 
commencing this proceeding (referred to as ACP Public Notice) sought 
comment on the use of these statutorily authorized outreach tools, 
including the authority to provide grants to outreach partners. See 
Wireless Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on the Implementation of the 
Affordable Connectivity Program, Proposed Rule, 88 FR 74036, 74056-57, 
paras. 108-112 (Dec. 29, 2021) (ACP Public Notice). As further 
explained in the Report and Order accompanying this Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission endeavors to use a variety 
of outreach tools permitted under the

[[Page 8386]]

statute to reach eligible consumers, including but not limited to 
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. In addition to the Commission's own outreach efforts, 
outreach partners also play an important role in disseminating 
information about the Affordable Connectivity Program; and grant 
funding would help expand these outreach efforts and improve their 
effectiveness.
    3. Any agency establishing a grant program must do so in strict 
compliance with 2 CFR part 200 and other regulations and statutes 
applicable to Federal grants. However, while the Commission typically 
administers various types of financial assistance programs, it does not 
have experience with the unique statutory and regulatory requirements 
applicable to Federal grant programs. While the present record evinces 
strong support for the establishment of a grant program to promote 
awareness of and enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity Program and 
identifies several potential uses of outreach funds, the structure and 
implementation of such a program requires further exploration due to 
the unique statutory and regulatory requirements of the Federal grant 
program, which the Commission has not previously administered. 
Accordingly, the Commission seeks additional comment and feedback on 
structuring an outreach grant program to be managed by the Commission 
in support of consumer outreach concerning the Affordable Connectivity 
Program, as permitted in the Infrastructure Act.
    4. Several commenters support the establishment of an outreach 
grant program and offer various recommendations and relevant insights. 
For instance, EducationSuperHighway cites the Internal Revenue 
Service's (IRS) Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program as a 
useful example that the Commission should look to as a model. Are there 
other analogous Federal outreach grant programs the Commission should 
consider as good models for establishing an outreach grant program 
besides those already identified in the record? The Commission 
especially encourages interested parties that have experience serving 
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, including State, local and Tribal governments and non-
profit community-based organizations, to identify Federal grant 
programs that they have found to be helpful in those efforts.
    5. The Commission seeks comment on the duration and budget for an 
outreach grant funding program and proposes to create a multiple-year 
outreach grant program to align with the expectation that the 
Affordable Connectivity Program will extend for multiple years. Should 
this multi-year program require grantees to submit new applications 
periodically? Should the Commission instead consider establishing a 
one-time, limited duration outreach grant program? The Commission also 
seeks comment on the appropriate funding amount for a grant program.
    6. As reflected in the record, commenters support the Commission 
using a wide variety of outreach methods to take advantage of the 
statutory tools provided in the Infrastructure Act, including the 
establishment of an outreach grant program Are there particular types 
of outreach activities toward which the Commission should consider 
targeting outreach grant funds? Tech Goes Home emphasizes the 
importance of ensuring that adequate resources are provided to local 
outreach partners to prevent additional financial burdens. How much 
funding might grantees need in order to execute effective outreach 
efforts? The Commission seeks comment on estimated ranges of outreach 
grant awards, taking into consideration the range of costs that may be 
associated with outreach efforts, including those identified in the 
record, and on potential per-application funding caps. The Commission 
also seeks comment on types of support and outreach material the 
Commission could provide to help outreach partners. Should the 
Commission provide technical assistance to grantees? What would be 
valuable technical assistance to grantees and how might technical 
assistance evolve over the duration of the grant program 
implementation?
    7. The Commission next seeks comment on entities that should be 
eligible for outreach grant funding. The record reflects support for 
relying on non-profit organizations and trusted community organizations 
as outreach partners for the Affordable Connectivity Program. AARP 
recommends that preference in grant awards should be given to 
organizations with established public interest credentials, preferably 
non-profit organizations, that have strong ties with key communities, 
including multi-cultural communities, and that grant applicants be 
required to provide examples of successful past outreach initiatives. 
The County of Los Angeles recommends that the Commission consider 
awarding grants to local governments, including counties, cities, and 
other entities, to further develop hyper-local campaigns, taking into 
consideration language needs, digital literacy, social media trends, 
relevant linear media, and other local factors. The Commission seeks 
comment on the types of entities that should be deemed eligible to 
receive potential outreach grant funding. If non-profit organizations 
are eligible for funds, should eligibility be limited to non-profit 
organizations with tax exempt status under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)? Should 
State, local, and Tribal governments, including associated social 
service agencies, school districts, libraries, public housing 
authorities, State governmental entities that carry out workforce 
development programs, or State agencies that are responsible for 
administering or supervising adult education and literacy activities in 
the State, be eligible to receive grant funds? Are there other types of 
organizations that should be eligible?
    8. Grantees would be required to adhere to applicable Federal 
grantee regulations, including but not limited to taking all necessary 
affirmative steps to assure that minority businesses, women's business 
enterprises, and labor surplus area firms are used when possible. See 2 
CFR 200.321(a). Should use of outreach grant funds be limited to the 
named grant recipient, or should funding recipients be permitted to use 
subgrantees? Would allowing subgrantees significantly complicate the 
administration of an outreach grant program? Do other outreach grant 
programs typically permit subgrantees? Is there evidence that the 
funding of subgrantees can lead to improved, targeted outreach?
    9. The Commission also seeks comment on the application process, 
reporting, and other requirements for a potential outreach grant 
program. Interested parties should refer to the Uniform Administrative 
Requirements, Cost Requirements, and Audit Requirements for Federal 
Awards, 2 CFR part 200, as well as the general reporting requirements 
in 2 CFR parts 25 and 170. The National Digital Inclusion Alliance 
requests that the application process, reporting requirements, and 
financial requirements be minimally burdensome, to the extent possible 
and recommends that the Commission should ``limit barriers to 
participation by small organizations that are trusted in their 
communities but have limited capacity

[[Page 8387]]

to participate in large Federal grant programs. The Commission invites 
commenters that have received Federal grants to address the grantee 
experience, including the grant application process, their use of grant 
funds, and best practices with respect to financial and reporting 
requirements for grant recipients, particularly for outreach grants. 
Should the application and selection process for a potential outreach 
grant program be competitive? The Commission seeks comment on how the 
Commission could structure an application and evaluation process to 
maximize the potential reach and effectiveness of outreach grant 
funding.
    10. An outreach grant program should maximize the number of 
eligible consumers participating in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program. The Commission seeks comment on whether awarding funding to 
applicants from a range of organization types and sizes (e.g., 
nationwide, regional, local, and smaller organizations) and ensuring 
diversity in geographic areas and intended outreach populations will 
best serve the underlying goal of increasing enrollment in the program. 
To do so effectively, the Commission has a strong interest in selecting 
grant applications that would target underserved populations and areas 
where the funding will have the most impact on increasing awareness of 
and, consequently, enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity Program. 
Should special consideration be given to prior experience working with 
or conducting outreach to such communities? The Commission seeks 
comment on what types of information should be sought from applicants 
in order to enable it to make informed decisions about the merits of 
the applications, including the reach of applicant organizations and 
the populations that they target. What metrics should the Commission 
take into account when considering applications and selecting grantees?
    11. The Commission seeks comment on establishing goals and metrics 
to track the outreach grant program's performance of the goals of 
promoting awareness of the Affordable Connectivity Program and 
enrollment by eligible households. What metrics could track performance 
towards the goal of increasing enrollment? What other measurable goals 
and metrics would be appropriate for an outreach funding program? The 
Commission also seeks comment on appropriate performance metrics and 
milestones for potential grantees. Consistent with the statutory and 
regulatory requirements of grant programs, what factors could the 
Commission require grantees to track to help measure the real impact of 
supported outreach activities? What steps should the Commission take to 
aggregate and report the performance data received from the grantees? 
What would be appropriate periods of time for reporting (e.g., annually 
or semi-annually) and assessing performance (e.g., one year or three 
years)?
    12. Any agency establishing a grant program must do so in 
compliance with 2 CFR, subtitle A, Office of Management and Budget 
Guidance for Grants and Agreements, and other regulations and statutes 
applicable to Federal grants. Because the Commission has not previously 
implemented a grant program, however, it must adopt rules or delegate 
authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Office of Managing 
Director in order to ensure compliance with the government-wide 
requirements applicable to grant programs, including 2 CFR parts 25, 
170, 175, 180, 182, and 200. Grant programs also must comply with 
requirements established in appropriations legislation. See, e.g., 
Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, 1439-1442 (Dec. 27, 2020) 
limitations on conference expenses, prohibition of whistleblowing 
confidentiality agreements, and restrictions on grants to entities with 
unpaid Federal tax liabilities or recent felony convictions). Parties 
are encouraged to comment on the Commission's implementation of those 
requirements, especially in light of the objectives of the outreach 
grant program.

B. Pilot Program Focused on Eligible Households Participating in 
Federal Public Housing Assistance Programs

    13. Under the supervision of the Department Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD), city and State housing authorities administer 
Federal Public Housing Assistance (FPHA) programs, such as the housing 
choice voucher program (Section 8), project-based rental assistance, 
and public housing, that benefit millions of Americans, including 
extremely low-income families. Congress and the Commission have long 
recognized the importance of connecting these households to Lifeline 
communications services and, more recently, to services supported by 
the Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB). The record demonstrates that 
large numbers of households in public housing would benefit from the 
Affordable Connectivity Program.
    14. In working to expand participation in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program, the Commission reaffirms the importance of 
connecting FPHA beneficiaries that are eligible for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. Most of these households were eligible for the 
predecessor EBB Program, but only a small share of them enrolled in the 
EBB Program.\1\ Additional steps and innovative approaches are needed 
to help ensure that the Affordable Connectivity Program reaches the 
lowest-income Americans. To that end, the Commission seeks comment on 
launching a pilot program focused on expanding ACP participation by 
FPHA beneficiaries, including increasing awareness and assisting with 
navigating the enrollment process. Are there other obstacles to ACP 
enrollment for FPHA beneficiaries that should be addressed?
    15. The Infrastructure Act requires the Commission to collaborate 
with relevant Federal agencies and permits the Commission to engage in 
outreach efforts to encourage eligible households to enroll in the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. To this end, the Commission intends to 
use a wide range of available outreach tools to increase awareness of 
and participation in the Affordable Connectivity Program. The record 
demonstrates that there is particular need for increased outreach to 
raise awareness of and participation in the Affordable Connectivity 
Program among low-income Americans who participate in the FPHA 
programs. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in exploring 
innovative ways that the Commission could partner with agencies that 
administer the FPHA programs on outreach and enrollment for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program. The Commission first seeks assistance 
in identifying the specific partner agencies for these efforts. In 
particular, the Commission seeks comment on the types of collaborative 
cross-agency outreach that would be most effective at reaching this 
population. Are there examples of cross-agency marketing and outreach 
efforts that the Commission should look to as models for these efforts? 
Are there other models the Commission should look to in designing and 
implementing these cross-agency efforts? What sources of data should 
the Commission consider to identify specific locations where such 
cross-agency outreach and marketing efforts are most likely to have a 
significant impact?
    16. The Commission also seeks comment on ways to make outreach 
through the partnerships as effective as possible by identifying and 
developing specific outreach and marketing efforts to be conducted 
through this pilot. Are there proven methods for communicating well 
with FPHA beneficiaries? What should the scope

[[Page 8388]]

and duration of these efforts be? The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether and how it can partner with third parties, including non-profit 
organizations, to help identify, develop, and carry out these marketing 
and outreach efforts. Should the Commission use Affordable Connectivity 
Program funding designated for outreach for these efforts?
    17. Heightening FPHA beneficiaries' awareness of the Affordable 
Connectivity Program alone may not be enough to significantly increase 
their participation in the program, and accordingly, the Commission 
seeks comment on how to best assist FPHA households in accessing or 
navigating the program application process. The Commission expects that 
partner agencies have regular opportunities to interact in person with 
members of households eligible for the Affordable Connectivity Program. 
Should the Commission encourage partner agencies to establish, as part 
of this pilot, assistance locations on site where eligible household 
members can complete and submit applications for the Affordable 
Connectivity Program? What are the benefits of such arrangements? This 
effort could impose some additional burdens on the staff and resources 
of partner agencies; how can the Commission reduce such burdens? Should 
the Commission direct the Universal Service Administrative Company 
(USAC) to give those agencies access to the National Verifier (as 
defined in 47 CFR 54.1800(q)) in order to assist applicants who are 
physically present with completing and submitting applications for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program?
    18. The Commission proposes to require any representatives that are 
granted access to the National Verifier to register in the 
Representative Accountability Database, consistent with 47 CFR 
54.1807(a), and to indicate that they are providing such assistance 
when they help consumers submit applications through the National 
Verifier. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on 
additional ways to help eligible FPHA households enroll. Are there 
other models for providing enrollment assistance the Commission should 
consider?
    19. The Commission seeks comment on how to measure the success of 
this pilot in increasing awareness of and enrollment in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program by participants in qualifying Federal Public 
Housing Assistance Programs.

C. Implementation of the Enhanced Benefit for High-Cost Areas

    20. The Infrastructure Act provides for a separate enhanced 
affordable connectivity benefit for households that are served by 
providers in high-cost areas (as the term high-cost areas is defined in 
a separate section of the Infrastructure Act), with such areas to be 
identified by the National Telecommunications Information 
Administration (NTIA) in consultation with the Commission. 47 U.S.C. 
1752(a)(7)(B) (the ``high-cost provision''). Specifically, the 
Infrastructure Act establishes that a discount of up to $75 per month 
may be applied to a provider's broadband service ``upon a showing that 
the applicability of the lower [$30.00 maximum benefit that applies 
elsewhere] 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.'' 47 U.S.C. 
1752(a)(7)(B). The ACP Public Notice sought comment on what the 
mechanism should be, and what a provider should be required to submit 
to show a ``particularized economic hardship.'' ACP Public Notice, 
paras. 71-73. While the present record includes some comments on this 
high-cost provision, the establishment of this mechanism requires 
further exploration given the interplay with other areas of the 
Infrastructure Act. including the definition of high-cost areas in 47 
U.S.C. 1702(a)(2).
    21. The high-cost areas provision incorporates the definition of 
``high-cost area'' in 47 U.S.C. 1702(a)(2)(G)(i), as ``an 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 NTIA in 
consultation with the Commission. In turn, the term unserved area is 
defined as ``an area in which not less than 80 percent of broadband-
serviceable locations are unserved locations.'' 47 U.S.C. 
1702(a)(2)(G)(ii). See also 47 U.S.C. 1702(a)(2)(H) (defining 
``broadband-serviceable location''); 47 U.S.C. 1702(a)(1)(A) (defining 
``unserved location''). The Commission seeks comment on how to 
interpret and apply the definition of ``high-cost area'' in 47 U.S.C. 
1702(a)(2)(G)(i) for purposes of the Affordable Connectivity Program, 
including whether such high-cost areas need to be unserved or if they 
can include high-cost areas that are served or unserved by an existing 
broadband provider. See also 47 U.S.C. 1702(a)(2)(H) (defining 
``broadband-serviceable location''); 47 U.S.C. 1702(a)(1)(A) (defining 
``unserved location'').
    22. The Commission seeks additional comment on the mechanism by 
which a provider can show particularized economic hardship. Should the 
Commission set clear standards or benchmarks for providers on what 
constitutes particularized economic hardship? In their comments on the 
ACP Public Notice, both NTCA and Conexon contend that a provider may 
face particularized economic hardship when the expected revenue from a 
substantial number of eligible households plus the high-cost universal 
service support it receives and the $30 monthly affordable connectivity 
benefit do not cover the cost of serving the designated high cost area, 
including depreciation expense, operating expense, the cost of capital, 
and other associated expenses, thus making it uneconomic to justify the 
incremental private investment needed to maintain the operation of that 
part of its network. Other commenters assert that commercial mobile 
carriers should be able to demonstrate that one or more cell sites may 
be decommissioned in the absence of a higher ACP benefit, or 
alternatively, would not be decommissioned if the higher ACP benefit is 
provided. The Commission seeks comment on the best method of 
determining whether providers face a particularized economic hardship. 
What constitutes a substantial number of eligible households? What 
considerations should be used to determine a provider's expected 
revenues? When a provider has a depressed take-rate, how can the 
Commission determines the cause is because households in that area 
cannot afford internet? How can the Commission assess the amount of 
revenue that providers need to maintain the operation of networks 
serving households in the designated high-cost areas? The Commission 
also seeks comment on other standards and tests the Commission should 
consider to make this determination.
    23. The Commission also invites comment on the specific information 
that providers should provide in order to show particularized economic 
hardship. What information (such as revenues, cost models, capital 
expenditures, etc.) should a provider be required to submit to show 
that increased subsidies from the Affordable Connectivity Program are 
necessary for the provider to maintain its network? Alternatively, is 
there a level of poverty

[[Page 8389]]

that could be applied in all high-cost areas to determine where 
carriers face particularized economic hardship? What information is 
publicly available for the Commission to consider in making such a 
determination? Should the Commission take into consideration other 
subsidies and financial benefits used by providers in determining a 
provider's request for high-cost treatment in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program?
    24. The ACP Public Notice sought comment on who should decide 
whether the provider met the standard for this enhanced benefit and the 
Commission seeks further comment on how this review process should be 
implemented. What else should the Commission consider when setting up 
the process for making determinations about a household's eligibility 
to receive this enhanced subsidy?
    25. 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. See 
Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved 
Communities Through the Federal Government, E.O. No. 13985, 86 FR 7009 
(Jan. 20, 2021). Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how 
these
    26. proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, 
inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's 
relevant legal authority.

II. Procedural Matters

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    27. This document contains proposed new information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific 
comment on how it might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    28. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 603, the 
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities of the policies and rules proposed in the 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). Written public comments 
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to 
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further 
Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, 
including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA).
    29. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. The FNPRM 
seeks comment on a multi-year grant program to support the efforts of 
outreach partners to inform potentially eligible households about the 
Affordable Connectivity Program and encourage them to enroll in the 
program, including the types of entities that could be eligible to 
apply for and receive grants, potentially including non-profit 
organizations, State, local, and Tribal governments, social service 
agencies, school districts, and libraries. The FNPRM also proposes and 
seeks comment on a pilot program focused on expanding ACP participation 
by beneficiaries of Federal Public Housing Assistance (FPHA) programs 
(housing choice voucher program (Section 8), project-based rental 
assistance, and public housing) by increasing their awareness of the 
program and helping them enroll, to be implemented in conjunction with 
agencies that administer the FPHA programs. In addition, the FNPRM 
seeks comment on rules to implement the enhanced affordable 
connectivity benefit of up to $75.00 per month that the Infrastructure 
Act provides to eligible households for broadband service offered by 
participating providers in certain high-cost areas, including the 
definition and identification of high-cost areas; the standards for a 
participating provider's showing of particularized economic hardship, 
the information it would need to submit (such as revenues, cost models, 
and capital expenditures), and the process of reviewing such showings.
    30. Legal Basis. The proposed actions are authorized pursuant to 
the Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. V, section 60502(a)(3)(B), 47 
U.S.C. 1752(a)(7)(B) and (b)(10)(C).
    31. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The small entities that might be 
eligible to apply for grants under the proposed outreach grant program 
include approximately 49,000 small governmental jurisdictions and 
572,000 small non-profit organizations, based on SBA definitions and 
data from the U.S. Census Bureau and other sources. A small subset of 
these entities might be eligible to seek to participate in the pilot 
program focused on public housing beneficiaries. The proposed rules 
concerning the enhanced affordable connectivity benefit could apply to 
approximately 3,000 wired broadband internet access service providers 
and 1,000 wireless broadband internet access service providers, if such 
providers opted to participate in the program and seeks to offer the 
enhanced benefit in high-cost areas where they can show particularized 
economic hardship.
    32. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements. The Commission anticipates that any grant-
related rules that it adopts, following the Uniform Guidance that 
applies to all Federal agencies (potentially with additional 
implementation details), see 79 FR 75872 (Dec. 19, 2014), will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Providers of wireline or wireless broadband internet access 
services, including small businesses, that voluntarily seek to qualify 
for the enhanced benefit might need to report and retain certain data 
about their operations. The precise nature of the necessary data cannot 
be ascertained at this time and the cost of compliance cannot be 
quantified, but any recordkeeping or reporting requirements would apply 
only to those providers that voluntarily participate and opt to seek 
the enhanced benefit, and the Commission believes that such providers 
will likely enjoy benefits that far exceed the reporting and 
recordkeeping costs.
    33. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered. The rules and requirements 
that the Commission ultimately adopts to implement the enhanced benefit 
in high-cost areas will be explicitly designed to accommodate and 
provide structure for the particularized showings of economic hardship 
that all applicants, including small entities, will need to submit. The 
particularized nature of each of these showings will inherently 
accommodate the particular circumstances of each applicant, including 
any small entity that chooses to apply for the benefit. The

[[Page 8390]]

Commission is hopeful that the comments it receives will further 
address matters impacting small entities and will include information, 
data and analyses relating to these matters.
    34. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the 
Commission's Proposals: None.

Ordering Clause

    35. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in Section 904 of Division N, Title IX of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, as 
amended by Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 
135 Stat. 429 (2021), this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 
adopted.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54

    Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and 
children, internet, Libraries, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Schools, Telecommunications, Telephone, Virgin Islands.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02908 Filed 2-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P