CORRECTED VERSION

Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------+---+----------------+----------------+---+--------------+
| In the Matter  | * | CC Docket No.  |                |   |              |
| of             | * | 96-45          |                |   |              |
|                | ) |                |                |   |              |
| Federal-State  | * |                |                |   |              |
| Joint Board on | * |                |                |   |              |
| Universal      |   |                |                |   |              |
| Service        | * |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
| Children's     | ) |                |                |   |              |
| Internet       | * |                |                |   |              |
| Protection Act | * |                |                |   |              |
|                |   |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                | ) |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                |   |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                | ) |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                |   |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                | ) |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                |   |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                | ) |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
|                | * |                |                |   |              |
+----------------+---+----------------+----------------+---+--------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: March 30, 2001 Released: April 5, 2001**

By the Commission:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

III\. BACKGROUND [4](#background)

IV\. DISCUSSION

A. Constitutionality of CIPA 9

B. Timing of Section 254(h) 10

C. Timing of Section 254(l) 16

D. Certification Form 20

E. Entities Certifying 23

F. Application of CIPA to Certain Services 28

G. Certification Language 32

H. Disclosure and Information-Gathering Requirements 40

I. Noncompliance Provisions 43

J. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements 49

K. Disabling Technology Protection Measures 53

L. Universal Service Funding for CIPA Compliance 54

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A. Effective Date 56

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 57

C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 58

1\. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 59

2\. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in
Response to the IRFA 60

3\. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
Rules Will Apply 61

4\. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements 63

5\. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 68

6\. Report To Congress 71

V. ORDERING CLAUSES 7

2

Appendix A---Parties Filing Comments

Appendix B---Parties Filing Reply Comments

Appendix C---Final Rules

# Introduction 

1.  In this Report and Order, we adopt rules proposed in the Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (*Notice*),[^1] to implement the
    Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA).[^2] Congress included
    CIPA as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001.[^3]
    Sections 1721 *et seq.* of CIPA provide that schools and libraries
    that have computers with Internet access must certify that they have
    in place certain Internet safety policies and technology protection
    measures in order to be eligible under section 254(h) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act),[^4] to receive
    discounted Internet access, Internet services, and internal
    connection services.[^5] CIPA also requires that our rules
    implementing the statute be in effect by April 20, 2001.[^6]

2.  We adopt these rules with the goal of faithfully implementing CIPA
    in a manner consistent with Congress's intent. We have attempted to
    craft our rules in the most practical and efficacious way possible,
    while providing schools and libraries with maximum flexibility in
    determining the best approach. Moreover, to reduce burdens in the
    application process, we have designed rules to use existing
    processes where applicable. We conclude that local authorities are
    best situated to choose which technology measures and Internet
    safety policies will be most appropriate for their relevant
    communities.[^7]

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3.  In this Order, we adopt rules that do the following:

-   In order to receive discounts for Internet access and internal
    connections services under the universal service support mechanism,
    school and library authorities must certify that they are enforcing
    a policy of Internet safety that includes measures to block or
    filter Internet access for both minors and adults to certain visual
    depictions. These include visual depictions that are (1) obscene,
    or (2) child pornography, or, with respect to use of computers with
    Internet access by minors, (3) harmful to minors. An authorized
    person may disable the blocking or filtering measure during any use
    by an adult to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful
    purpose.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A school administrative authority must certify that its policy of
    Internet safety includes monitoring the online activities of minors.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In order to receive discounts, school and library authorities must
    also certify that they have adopted and implemented an Internet
    safety policy addressing (i) access by minors to inappropriate
    matter on the Internet and World Wide Web; (ii) the safety and
    security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other
    forms of direct electronic communications; (iii) unauthorized
    access, including so-called "hacking," and other unlawful activities
    by minors online; (iv) unauthorized disclosure, use, and
    dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (v)
    measures designed to restrict minors' access to materials harmful to
    minors.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   For this funding year, schools and libraries must certify by October
    28, 2001 that they have the policies and technology measures in
    place, or that they are undertaking such actions, including any
    necessary procurement procedures, to put them in place for the
    following funding year. Because no school or library may receive
    services at discount rates during any time period in which it is out
    of compliance with its certification, as of the time that a school
    or library begins receiving services in Funding Year 4, it must
    either have the policies and technology measure in place, or be
    undertaking necessary actions to put them in place for the next
    year.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Schools and libraries shall make the necessary certifications in FCC
    Form 486, which is submitted after a decision is made on requests
    for discounts under the universal service support mechanism.

# BACKGROUND

4.  Pursuant to section 254 of the Act, the Federal Communications
    Commission (Commission) established the schools and libraries
    universal service support mechanism (colloquially known as the
    "e-rate" program).[^8] Under that mechanism, eligible schools,
    libraries, and consortia that include eligible schools and libraries
    (collectively, recipients), may apply for discounted eligible
    telecommunications, Internet access, and internal connections
    services.[^9]

5.  The Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service
    Administrative Company (Administrator) administers the schools and
    libraries support mechanism under the direction of the
    Commission.[^10] After an applicant for discounted services under
    the schools and libraries support mechanism has entered into
    agreements for eligible services with one or more service providers,
    it must file with SLD an FCC Form 471 application.[^11] The Form 471
    notifies the Administrator of the services that have been ordered,
    informs the providers with whom the applicant has entered into an
    agreement, and supplies an estimate of funds needed to cover the
    discounts to be given for eligible services.[^12] SLD then issues a
    funding commitment decision letter indicating the discounts, if any,
    to which the applicant is entitled. The approved recipient of
    discounted services subsequently submits to SLD an FCC Form 486,
    which triggers the process for SLD to receive invoices from the
    service provider.[^13]

6.  CIPA amends, *inter alia*, section 254 of the Act to impose new
    requirements on schools and libraries "having computers with
    Internet access" and receiving discounted services under the schools
    and libraries universal service support mechanism.[^14]
    Specifically, under CIPA, no school or library may receive universal
    service discounts unless the authority with responsibility for
    administration of the school or library makes the required
    certifications, and ensures the use of such computers in accordance
    with the certifications.[^15] They must certify that they are
    enforcing a policy of Internet safety and have in place a technology
    protection measure. The policy of Internet safety must include a
    technology protection measure that protects against Internet access
    by both adults and minors to visual depictions that are (1) obscene,
    or (2) child pornography, or, with respect to use of the computers
    by minors, (3) harmful to minors.[^16] The entity must also certify
    that its policy of Internet safety includes monitoring the online
    activities of minors.[^17] CIPA does not, however, require the
    tracking of Internet use by any identifiable minor or adult
    user.[^18] Furthermore, CIPA requires that recipients provide
    reasonable public notice and hold at least one public hearing or
    meeting to address this proposed policy of Internet safety.[^19]

7.  In carrying out its certification responsibilities under CIPA, an
    entity receiving supported services must also adopt and implement,
    pursuant to section 254(l), an Internet safety policy addressing (i)
    access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet and World
    Wide Web; (ii) the safety and security of minors when using
    electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic
    communications; (iii) unauthorized access, including so-called
    "hacking," and other unlawful activities by minors online; (iv)
    unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal
    information regarding minors; and (v) measures designed to restrict
    minors' access to materials harmful to minors.[^20] CIPA also
    requires that recipients provide reasonable public notice and hold
    at least one public hearing or meeting to address this proposed
    Internet safety policy as well.[^21]

8.  Schools and libraries for which entities knowingly fail to submit
    certifications pursuant to CIPA are not eligible for discount
    services until such time as the appropriate entity submits
    certifications.[^22] Schools and libraries that knowingly fail to
    ensure the use of their computers in accordance with the
    certifications under section 254(h)(5)(A)(i) and (6)(A)(i) are
    required to reimburse any funds and discounts received for the
    period during which they were out of compliance, but may receive
    discounts for subsequent services after remedying compliance.[^23]
    Under existing law and Commission procedure, the Administrator of
    the universal service support mechanism for schools and libraries
    does not provide funds directly to schools and libraries, but
    rather, provides funds to eligible service providers, who then offer
    discounted services to eligible schools and libraries.[^24] If
    necessary (as when funds have been incorrectly awarded), the
    Administrator seeks reimbursement from the service provider.[^25]
    CIPA, however, specifically requires that any reimbursement of
    universal service funds necessary because of an entity's
    noncompliance with section 254(h)(5)(A)(i) and (6)(A)(i) shall be
    made by the school or library.[^26]

# DISCUSSION

## Constitutionality of CIPA

9.  In the *Notice*, we sought comment regarding effective
    implementation of CIPA by the Commission.[^27] Some commenters state
    their view that the legislation is facially unconstitutional,
    because mandatory blocking and filtering of school and library
    Internet access violates users' privacy rights.[^28] Other
    commenters assert that the statute is constitutional.[^29] In
    general, administrative agencies are to presume that the statutes
    that Congress directs them to implement are constitutional.[^30] We
    therefore defer to Congress's determination that section 254(h)
    and (l) is constitutional and comply with Congress's direction to
    promulgate implementing regulations.[^31]

## Timing of Section 254(h)

10. CIPA provides that the effective date of its provisions is 120 days
    after the date of enactment, *i.e.,* April 20, 2001.[^32] Section
    254(h) further provides that certifications shall be made "with
    respect to the first program funding year under this subsection
    following \[the\] effective date \[of this paragraph\], not later
    than 120 days after the beginning of such program funding
    year."[^33] In any subsequent year, recipients must certify as part
    of the application process for such program funding year.[^34] In
    the *Notice*, the Commission stated, "Funding Year 4 of the schools
    and libraries universal service support mechanism, which begins on
    July 1, 2001 and ends on June 30, 2002, is the first program year
    after the effective date. Therefore, the \[CIPA\] certifications
    pursuant to section 254(h)(5) and (6) are due on or before October
    28, 2001."[^35]

11. We adopt our tentative conclusion that Funding Year 4 of the schools
    and libraries universal service support mechanism, which begins on
    July 1, 2001, is the first program funding year following the
    effective date of CIPA, notwithstanding the arguments of many
    commenters that the first funding year following the effective date
    is Funding Year 5, which begins July 1, 2002.[^36] According to
    their view, the program funding year begins not with the
    availability of funds for services starting July 1, 2001, but
    rather, had already begun with the opening of the filing window for
    FCC Form 471 on November 6, 2000.[^37] Thus, because the application
    process was already underway at the time of enactment of the
    statute, these commenters contend, requiring certification in
    Funding Year 4 would constitute a retroactive application of law,
    would be burdensome and confusing, and might cause recipients to
    have to renegotiate or breach contracts.[^38]

12. We are not persuaded that Funding Year 5 is the first program
    funding year following the effective date of the statute. It is
    well-established in the Commission's rules and in numerous orders
    that the program "funding year" for the schools and libraries
    universal service support mechanism starts on July 1, and ends on
    June 30 of the following year.[^39] Although the commenters are
    correct that the application process begins prior to July 1 of each
    year, July 1 is the starting date for the funding year because
    recipients may not receive discounts for services obtained before
    that date. This conclusion is supported by the instructions to the
    application form.[^40] SLD has published elsewhere that the funding
    year begins on July 1 of each year.[^41]

13. Requiring certifications for Funding Year 4 does not impose an undue
    burden on recipients. Congress provided that, for Funding Year 4 or
    any other year that is the first year after the effective date of
    section 254(h) in which an entity applies for universal service
    discounts, entities that do not have the Internet safety policy and
    technology protection measures of section 254(h) in place shall
    certify that they are "undertaking such actions, including any
    necessary procurement procedures, to put in place" the required
    policy and measures.[^42] Entities making this certification need
    not have the required policy and measures in place until the
    subsequent year.[^43]

14. We further disagree with commenters who suggest that requiring
    certifications for Funding Year 4 is a retroactive application of
    law because entities had already entered commitments for Funding
    Year 4 as of the date of the statute.[^44] As described above, CIPA
    clearly requires that entities certify no later than October 28,
    2001 for Funding Year 4. Moreover, because entities must certify by
    that date only that they are undertaking such actions to put in
    place an Internet safety policy and technology protection measure
    for Funding Year 5, schools and libraries have ample notice of the
    statutory requirements.

15. We emphasize that although the statute permits certifications to be
    submitted by October 28, 2001, for Funding Year 4, schools and
    libraries must implement the actions required under CIPA before they
    may receive discounted services. Thus, any school or library that
    receives discounted services between July 1 and October 28, 2001,
    must be taking actions to comply with CIPA *at the time that it
    actually receives these services*, even though the certification is
    not due until October 28, 2001. Entities that intend to certify that
    they have not completed all the requirements of CIPA but are
    undertaking such actions, including necessary procurement
    procedures, to complete CIPA\'s requirements for Funding Year 5, may
    only receive discounts for Funding Year 4 if they are undertaking
    such actions by the time they begin receiving services.

## Timing of Section 254(l)

16. Although CIPA establishes a timeframe in which an entity must
    certify pursuant to section 254(h)(5)(B-C) or (6)(B-C) that it has
    adopted a policy of Internet safety including a technology
    protection measure, it does not establish a specific timeframe for
    certifying that an entity has adopted an Internet safety policy
    pursuant to section 254(l), nor is there legislative history that
    suggests a specific timeframe for section 254(l).[^45] We must
    therefore determine what is a reasonable timeframe in light of the
    statutory context and statutory goals. For the reasons set forth
    below, we adopt a timeframe for section 254(l) that corresponds with
    the timeframe set forth in section 254(h)(5) and (6).[^46]

17. Although section 254(l) does not specify a particular certification
    timeframe, it becomes effective by its terms on or after April 20,
    2001.[^47] Congress also directed that rules be prescribed by April
    20, 2001.[^48] Moreover, section 254(l) imposes some very similar,
    if not identical, requirements as section 254(h), and adds other
    requirements.[^49] As explained above, we find that entities must
    submit a certification required under section 254(h)(5) and (6) no
    later than October 28, 2001. Because the certification requirements
    of section 254(h) and (l) are complimentary, and may overlap to a
    significant degree, we believe the better policy is to adopt the
    same timeframe for certification for both sets of requirements.
    Indeed, it is quite likely that a school or library would find that
    the technology protection measure employed for section
    254(h)(5)(B)(i)(III) or (6)(B)(i)(III) would satisfy, at least in
    part, the requirement in section 254(l).[^50] Thus, we agree with
    commenters that such an approach will minimize the administrative
    burdens on entities and result in the least confusion for all
    entities and recipients.[^51] We recognize, however, that section
    254(l) imposes certain additional requirements beyond those found in
    section 254(h). For that reason, we adopt a rule that, like section
    254(h)(5)(E)(ii) and (6)(E)(ii), affords recipients time in which to
    put section 254(l) requirements in place.

18. We therefore conclude that entities shall certify, no later than
    October 28, 2001 for Funding Year 4, that they have adopted the
    Internet safety policy of section 254(l).[^52] Starting in Funding
    Year 5, entities will be required to make this certification as part
    of the application process for that funding year.[^53] In addition,
    in Funding Year 4, or any other year that is the first year in which
    an entity applies for universal service discounts, entities that
    have not adopted and implemented the Internet safety policy required
    by section 254(l) shall certify that they are "undertaking such
    actions, including any necessary procurement procedures, to put in
    place" the required policy.[^54] Entities making this certification
    are not required to adopt and implement the required policy until
    the subsequent year.[^55]

19. In accordance with our reasoning above, we also conclude that we
    should adopt waiver rules identical to those found in section
    254(h)(5)(E)(ii)(III) and (6)(E)(ii)(III), that shall apply to the
    certification for section 254(l).[^56] If state or local procurement
    rules or regulations or competitive bidding requirements prevent an
    entity from making the section 254(l) certification, the entity may
    comply with the statute by so certifying, and must certify in
    accordance with our rules that the school or library will be brought
    into compliance.

## Certification Form

20. In concurrence with the views of the vast majority of commenters, we
    direct that certifications in Funding Year 4 and subsequent funding
    years be made on a modified FCC Form 486 ("Receipt of Service
    Confirmation Form").[^57] In the *Notice,* the Commission proposed
    requiring certifications on a modified FCC Form 486 for Funding Year
    4, and on a modified FCC Form 471 starting in Funding Year 5.[^58]
    We now are persuaded that utilizing a modified Form 486 is the most
    efficient and least burdensome means of certification for Funding
    Year 4 and subsequent years.

21. We believe this conclusion is consistent with the statutory
    language, which stipulates that schools and libraries may not
    *receive* services at discount rates under the schools and libraries
    support mechanism, unless the required certifications are made on
    their behalf.[^59] The Form 471, however, is completed by
    *applicants* for discounted services to indicate specifically those
    services for which discounts are sought. Applicants completing their
    Forms 471 are not assured of receiving discounted services, and
    consequently might not become subject to CIPA requirements.[^60]
    Thus, the Form 486, which is submitted only after SLD has rendered a
    decision on the application, is more appropriate for CIPA
    certifications.[^61] Schools and libraries will know by the time
    they submit the modified Form 486 that they will receive discounts,
    which is not the case at the time of Form 471 submission.[^62] By
    certifying on Form 486, schools and libraries will only have to
    certify as to CIPA compliance after they are certain of receiving
    discounted services.

22. Some commenters observe that recipients may submit their Forms 486
    prior to the October 28, 2001 certification deadline in the
    statute.[^63] These commenters request that the Commission permit
    entities to amend their Form 486 certifications up to the October
    28, 2001 deadline.[^64] We conclude that recipients submitting their
    modified Forms 486 early may amend the certifications on the
    modified Form 486, but must submit such amendments for Funding Year
    4 postmarked no later than October 28, 2001. Schools and libraries
    may not, however, receive discounts for services in Funding Year 4
    or any subsequent funding year unless they have made the necessary
    certifications under CIPA on the Form 486. We delegate to the Common
    Carrier Bureau the authority to make any changes necessary to the
    Form 486 consistent with this Order.[^65]

## Entities Certifying

23. In discussing compliance requirements for schools, CIPA refers both
    to certifications by a "school, school board, local education
    agency, or other authority with responsibility for administration of
    the school," and also to certifications made solely by a
    "school."[^66] As the schools and libraries support mechanism has
    been implemented, however, applicants may be entities other than
    individual schools. In addition, it is possible that there may be no
    individual at a particular school with the responsibility under
    state and local laws and policies to certify on behalf of a school.
    Often, the responsible individuals are school district officials or
    school board members. One proposal to remedy this discrepancy would
    allow certifications by school districts, rather than schools.[^67]
    Similarly, although CIPA recognizes that waivers may be sought by a
    "library, library board, or other authority with responsibility for
    administration of a library," the statute also at times refers
    merely to certifications made by "a library."[^68] Because
    individual schools or libraries may or may not have the authority to
    make legally binding commitments, we conclude that the statute
    permits certifications for schools pursuant to CIPA to be made by
    the relevant school, school board, local education agency, or other
    authority with responsibility for administration of the school. We
    similarly conclude that certifications for libraries pursuant to
    CIPA may be made by a library, library board, or other authority
    with responsibility for administration of the library. Consistent
    with this interpretation and existing support mechanism procedures
    and policy, we direct SLD to accept CIPA certifications from the
    Billed Entity on behalf of its component members. [^69]

24. In the *Notice,* we sought comment on which entities may make the
    certifications required under CIPA, particularly in cases involving
    consortia.[^70] Applicants often include consortia that comprise
    eligible schools and libraries. We received numerous comments
    proposing that consortia be given maximum flexibility in determining
    the best manner in which to certify CIPA compliance for all
    consortium members.[^71] In light of existing procedures involving
    consortia, we are convinced that having the consortium leader
    certify that it has received the certifications required by CIPA
    from individual consortium members is the most efficient and least
    burdensome method for ensuring compliance with CIPA.

25. We conclude that all members of a consortium receiving discounts for
    Internet access and/or internal connections must submit signed
    certifications to the Billed Entity of each consortium on a new
    form, FCC Form 479 ("Certification to Consortium Leader of
    Compliance with the Children's Internet Protection Act"), in
    language consistent with that adopted herein on the FCC Form 486.
    The Billed Entity shall maintain a file of those certifications. We
    therefore direct the Common Carrier Bureau, with input from SLD
    where appropriate, to establish a form in which such members of
    consortia shall make the required CIPA certifications. The Billed
    Entity shall certify on the Form 486 that it has received completed
    and signed certifications from all such members, and shall make such
    certifications available to the Commission or SLD upon the request
    of either.[^72]

26. We therefore disagree with commenters who suggest that individual
    consortia members be permitted to certify to the Commission on their
    own behalf, and also with those who recommend that individual
    members be required to certify.[^73] We conclude that our approach
    will best ensure full accountability and compliance on the part of
    all schools and libraries, while minimizing administrative burdens
    and costs for consortia leaders, individual schools and libraries,
    and the Commission.[^74] We further conclude, in response to
    commenters' concerns, that because the Billed Entity in a consortium
    is required to certify only that it has received the signed and
    completed certifications from the members of the consortium, the
    Billed Entity is not responsible for verifying that members'
    certifications are accurate.[^75]

27. In addition, we conclude that it would be inconsistent with the
    statute to penalize the entire consortium if only some members of
    the consortium fail to comply with CIPA, as pointed out by
    commenters.[^76] We therefore direct SLD to propose to the Common
    Carrier Bureau, if necessary and in a manner consistent with our
    directive herein, processes for reimbursement of universal service
    funds by those members of consortia that are not in compliance. In
    the event that a member of a consortium is deemed not to be in
    compliance with CIPA, the authority for that school or library shall
    reimburse its proportional share of the universal service discounts
    it has received pursuant to the statute for the period during which
    the entity was out of compliance with CIPA.[^77] If a school or
    library entity subsequently comes into compliance with CIPA, it will
    again be eligible for discounts, but not for any period during which
    it was out of compliance.

## Application of CIPA to Certain Services

28. Section 254(h)(5)(A)(ii) and (6)(A)(ii) states that CIPA only
    applies to entities receiving "Internet access, Internet service, or
    internal connections."[^78] As we observed in the *Notice,* the
    schools and libraries universal service support mechanism supports
    only telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal
    connections.[^79] We agree with commenters that the plain language
    of section 254(h)(5)(A)(ii) and (6)(A)(ii) clearly excludes from the
    requirements of CIPA schools and libraries receiving only
    telecommunications services.[^80]

29. We conclude that the statute does not carve out an exception for
    computers that access the Internet but cannot access the World Wide
    Web, as is argued by some commenters. [^81] Section
    254(h)(5)(B-C)(i) and (6)(B-C)(i) clearly states that CIPA applies
    "with respect to any of \[a recipient's\] computers with Internet
    access . . ."[^82] However, systems like those of certain libraries,
    which connect various computers in different libraries through the
    Internet but are designed so that they cannot access the World Wide
    Web or any depictions prohibited by CIPA, may, in effect, constitute
    the required filtering and blocking required by CIPA.

30. Some commenters request that the Commission exempt from CIPA's
    requirements computers that are not available to the public, such as
    computers used solely by school or library staff.[^83] They argue
    that exempting entities from having to install technology protection
    measures on such computers would reduce recipients' costs.[^84]
    Other commenters, by contrast, contend that CIPA on its face clearly
    applies to "any of \[a recipient's\] computers with Internet access
    . . . ."[^85] We agree with the latter view that CIPA makes no
    distinction between computers used only by staff and those
    accessible to the public. We therefore may not provide for any
    exemption from CIPA's requirements for computers not available to
    the public. Because the statute provides that recipients may disable
    technology protection measures for adults engaged in bona fide
    research or other lawful purposes, school and library staff may
    continue to access all visual depictions necessary for those
    purposes.[^86] To the extent that recipients are concerned about
    costs associated with maintaining filtering or blocking systems that
    may frequently be disabled for use by staff, they are encouraged to
    take such considerations into account when negotiating the purchase
    or acquisition of technology protection measures.

31. Commenters also express their view that CIPA is in potential
    conflict with laws governing access at federal depository
    libraries.[^87] Such commenters contend that existing statutes
    require federal depository libraries to provide free and open access
    to all citizens of both hard copy and electronic resources
    regardless of age. As a way of reconciling any potential conflict
    between statutes, we believe that CIPA's provision for disabling
    blocking and filtering technology for bona fide research and other
    lawful purposes should accommodate such concerns.[^88]

## Certification Language

32. In the *Notice,* the Commission proposed that recipients certify by
    affirming either (1) "I certify that the recipient complies with all
    relevant provisions of the Children's Internet Protection Act, 47
    U.S.C. § 254(h)," or, (2) "I certify that the requirements of the
    Children's Internet Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 254(h), do not
    apply." Some commenters express the view that this simple
    certification should be more specific, in order to prevent
    inadvertent or intentional non-compliance.[^89] We are persuaded
    that the certification language that we adopt today will better
    ensure that recipients understand the fundamental requirements of
    certification. We have incorporated the suggestion of various
    commenters to allow entities to certify that, although they are not
    in compliance, they are undertaking such actions, including such
    necessary procurement procedures, to put the Internet safety policy
    and technology protection measures in place by the next funding
    year.[^90] Although an entity without the required measures in place
    could be fully compliant with the provisions of CIPA by undertaking
    these actions \-- and therefore could validly certify that the
    recipient is "in compliance" under the certification proposed in the
    *Notice \--* we are persuaded that having a separate certification
    option will avoid unnecessary confusion.

33. Some commenters have requested that we require entities to certify
    to the effectiveness of their Internet safety policy and technology
    protection measures.[^91] However, such a certification of
    effectiveness is not required by the statute.[^92] Moreover, adding
    an effectiveness standard does not comport with our goal of
    minimizing the burden we place on schools and libraries. Therefore,
    we will not adopt an effectiveness certification requirement.

34. A large majority of commenters express concern that there is no
    technology protection measure currently available that can
    successfully block all visual depictions covered by CIPA.[^93] Such
    commenters seek language in the certification or elsewhere "designed
    to protect those who certify from liability for, or charges of,
    having made a false statement in the certification" because
    available technology may not successfully filter or block all such
    depictions.[^94] Commenters are also concerned that technology
    protection measures may also filter or block visual depictions that
    are not prohibited under CIPA.[^95]

35. We presume Congress did not intend to penalize recipients that act
    in good faith and in a reasonable manner to implement available
    technology protection measures. Moreover, this proceeding is not the
    forum to determine whether such measures are fully effective.[^96]

36. After careful review, we conclude that the appropriate school or
    library authority must make the following certification on FCC Form
    486:

I certify that, as of the date of the start of discounted services
(check one):

(1) The recipient(s) of service represented in the Funding Request
    Number(s) on this Form 486 has (have) complied with the requirements
    of the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified at 47 U.S.C.
    § 254(h) and (l).

(2) Pursuant to the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified at
    47 U.S.C. § 254(h) and (l), the recipient(s) of service represented
    in the Funding Request Number(s) on this Form 486 is (are)
    undertaking such actions, including any necessary procurement
    procedures, to comply with the requirements of CIPA for the next
    funding year, but has (have) not completed all requirements of CIPA
    for this funding year.

(3) The Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified at 47 U.S.C. §
    254(h) and (l), does not apply because the recipient(s) of service
    represented in the Funding Request Number(s) on this Form 486 is
    (are) receiving discount services only for telecommunications
    services.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
37. A Billed Entity who filed a Form 471 as a "consortium application"
    and who is also a recipient of services as a member of that
    consortium must select one of the above certifications.

38. Furthermore, every Billed Entity who filed a Form 471 as a
    "consortium application" on behalf of consortium members shall make
    one of the following two certifications:

> I certify as the Billed Entity for the consortium that I have
> collected duly completed and signed Forms 479 from all eligible
> members of the consortium.
>
> I certify as the Billed Entity for the consortium that the only
> services that I have been approved for discounts under the universal
> service support mechanism on behalf of eligible members of the
> consortium are telecommunications services, and therefore the
> requirements of the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified at
> 47 U.S.C. § 254(h) and (l), do not apply.

39. The Form 486 certification section shall also include the following
    disclaimer: "The certification language above is not intended to
    fully set forth or explain all the requirements of the statute."

## Disclosure and Information-Gathering Requirements 

40. After careful review, we decline to require schools and libraries to
    publicly post the key requirements of CIPA, the text of the written
    Internet safety policy adopted, the name of the vendor of the
    technology protection measure chosen, and instructions on
    registering complaints.[^97] We disagree with commenters that
    suggest that recipients be required to post this material in a
    public area, preferably near the Internet computers, and on websites
    when possible.[^98] Commenters argue that this mandated disclosure
    would inform library patrons and parents of school children about
    the measures taken to protect against illegal or objectionable
    content, and would assure that the public would assist in monitoring
    compliance.[^99]

41. The plain language of the statute does not require such
    disclosures.[^100] Congress has not specified what information
    schools and libraries must disseminate to their relevant communities
    regarding CIPA implementation choices, and the manner in which they
    must do so. Because the statute does not require these disclosures,
    we decline to impose additional burdens on schools and libraries.

42. A few commenters propose mandating that all schools and libraries
    compile and report specific information about the workings of
    technology protection measures.[^101] Under these proposals,
    entities would be required, for example, to catalogue (in various
    categories) the number of attempts made to access prohibited visual
    depictions, the number of times the technology measure succeeded or
    failed, and the number of instances where "clearly or arguably
    appropriate and protected material" was inadvertently blocked or
    restricted.[^102] It has also been proposed that we require all
    recipients to collect any complaints filed by the public, and make
    these available.[^103] Other commenters oppose these various
    requirements as not mandated by CIPA, overly burdensome to schools
    and libraries, and potentially violative of statutory privacy rights
    of students.[^104] Because we concur that these data collection and
    reporting requirements fall outside the requirements of CIPA, we
    decline to impose such requirements on recipients.[^105] As we have
    stated previously, we are confident that local authorities will take
    the appropriate steps to ensure that they have complied with CIPA's
    requirements.

## Noncompliance Provisions

43. Section 254(h)(5)(A) and (6)(A) specifically prohibits the receipt
    by schools and libraries of services at discount rates unless such
    recipients submit certifications as described in section
    254(h)(5)(B-C), (6)(B-C), and (l).[^106] Moreover, section
    254(h)(5)(F) and (6)(F) addresses the consequences to schools and
    libraries for failure to submit and comply with their
    certifications. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on whether rules
    are necessary to implement these provisions.[^107]

44. Schools and libraries for which entities knowingly fail to submit
    certifications pursuant to CIPA are not eligible for discount
    services until such time as the appropriate entity submits
    certifications.[^108] Schools and libraries that knowingly fail to
    ensure the use of their computers in accordance with the
    certification requirements under section 254(h)(5)(B-C) and (6)(B-C)
    are required to reimburse any funds and discounts received for the
    period during which they were out of compliance, but may
    subsequently receive discounts after remedying compliance.[^109] The
    statute provides that if a school or library has failed to comply
    with these certification requirements, "\[u\]pon submittal to the
    Commission of a certification or other appropriate evidence of such
    remedy, the \[school or library\] shall be eligible for services at
    discount rates under this subsection.[^110] Under existing law and
    Commission procedure, the Administrator of the universal service
    support mechanism does not provide funds directly to schools and
    libraries, but rather, provides funds to eligible service providers,
    who then offer discounted services to eligible schools and
    libraries.[^111] If necessary (as when funds have been incorrectly
    awarded), the Administrator seeks reimbursement from the service
    provider.[^112] CIPA, however, requires that any reimbursement of
    universal service funds necessary because of an entity's
    noncompliance with CIPA shall be made by the school or library.
    Therefore, in cases in which we find noncompliance with these
    requirements, we will require the noncompliant school or library to
    reimburse the universal service support mechanism directly for any
    discounts received.

45. Section 254(h)(5)(F)(i) and (h)(6)(F)(i) applies by its terms to
    section 254(l)[^113][^114] and therefore a school or library is not
    eligible for services at discount rates if it knowingly fails to
    submit the certifications required pursuant to section 254(h)(5)(A)
    and (h)(6)(A). In contrast, section 254(h)(5)(F)(ii) and (6)(F)(ii),
    which addresses a school's or library's failure to comply with
    certification requirements of section 254(h)(5)(B-C) and (6)(B-C),
    does not by its terms apply to section 254(l)[^115][^116] Moreover,
    section 254(l) does not contain specific statutory language
    addressing a school's or library's failure to comply with the
    certification requirements of section 254(l). Section 254(h)(5)(A)
    and (h)(6)(A), however, specifically states that a school or library
    "having computers with Internet access *may not receive services at
    discount rates* under paragraph (1)(B) *unless* the school \[or
    library\]. . . . (II) submits to the Commission a certification that
    an Internet safety policy has been adopted and implemented for the
    school under subsection (l).[^117] [^118] Therefore we believe it is
    necessary to adopt a rule providing for reimbursement in the event
    of noncompliance, and remedies for failure to comply with the
    certification requirements set forth section 254(l). This approach
    is consistent with our analysis and conclusions in paragraphs 16-19
    of this Order. We previously found that, given the significant
    overlap between the certification requirements in section
    254(h)(5)(B-C) and (6)(B-C), and 254(l), we should adopt, by rule,
    timeframe and waiver provisions to apply to the requirements of
    section 254(l) that are identical to those applicable by statute to
    the certification requirements of section 254(h)(5)(B-C) and
    (6)(B-C).

46. Therefore, any school or library that knowingly fails to ensure the
    use of its computers in accordance with the certification under
    subsection 254(l) shall reimburse any funds and discounts from the
    federal universal service support mechanism for schools and
    libraries for the period covered by such certification. In addition,
    a school or library may remedy this failure by ensuring the use of
    its computers in accordance with such certification. Upon submittal
    to the Commission of a certification or other appropriate evidence
    of such remedy, the school or library shall be eligible for services
    at discount rates from the federal universal service support
    mechanism for schools and libraries.

47. Moreover, we determine that schools and libraries have adequate
    incentives to comply with the requirements of the statute. Not only
    would failure to submit or comply with a certification requirement
    result in the loss of discounted services, but it could also
    engender concern among library patrons and parents of students at
    the school. We believe that schools and libraries will act
    appropriately in order to avoid such outcomes. Thus, it is
    reasonable to presume that an entity will comply with its
    certification, and therefore, we will rarely, if ever, be called
    upon to look beyond that certification. We therefore direct the
    Common Carrier Bureau, with input from SLD, where appropriate, to
    develop any necessary procedures to address those instances where an
    entity fails to comply with its certification.

48. In accordance with these views, we decline to follow the suggestions
    of commenters to incorporate within our regulations layman's
    explanations of obscenity, child pornography, and the term "harmful
    to minors."[^119] We decline to amplify the statutory definitions.

## Public Notice and Hearing Requirements

49. Section 254(h)(5)(A)(iii) of CIPA establishes that a school, school
    board, local educational agency, or other authority with
    responsibility for administration of the school, shall provide
    reasonable public notice and hold at least one public hearing or
    meeting to address a proposed Internet safety policy.[^120] Under
    the parallel provision for libraries, CIPA requires that a library
    shall provide such notice and such a hearing.[^121] Furthermore,
    section 254(l) requires that schools and libraries adopting the
    requisite Internet safety policy under that section also provide
    reasonable public notice and at least one public hearing or meeting
    to address that proposed policy.[^122]

50. Some commenters recommend that entities that have already adopted
    Internet safety policies need not be required by the Commission to
    "repeat the process once more" by providing reasonable notice and
    holding a public hearing.[^123] As an initial matter, for reasons of
    coherency and consistency already explained in this Order, we
    interpret "library" in section 254(h)(6)(A)(iii) and 254(l)(1) to
    mean "library, library board, or other authority with responsibility
    for administration of the library." Similarly, we construe "school"
    in section 254(l)(1) to mean "school, school board, local
    educational agency, or other authority with responsibility for
    administration of the school," rendering that section consistent
    with other provisions in the statute.

51. If an entity has already provided reasonable public notice and at
    least one public hearing or meeting relating to an Internet safety
    policy and technology protection measure that meets the requirements
    of section 254(h), and also relating to an Internet safety policy
    that complies with section 254(l), then we conclude that the entity
    has already complied with the public notice and hearing requirements
    of CIPA.[^124] If an entity has not met those conditions, we
    conclude that the statute requires that the entity provide the
    required notice, and hearing or meeting.

52. The public notice and hearing requirement for schools contained in
    section 254(h)(5)(A)(iii) also states that "\[i\]n the case of an
    elementary or secondary school *other than* an elementary or
    secondary school as defined in section 14101 of the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. § 8801), the notice and
    hearing required by this clause may be limited to those members of
    the public with a relationship to the school."[^125] The existing
    statutory framework in section 254(h) limits discounts to elementary
    and secondary schools as defined in paragraphs (14) and (25) of
    section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
    1965.[^126] Therefore, it appears that there are no schools eligible
    for discounted services pursuant to section 254 that would not fall
    within the definition of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    of 1965.

## Disabling Technology Protection Measures

53. Section 254(h)(5)(D) and (6)(D) permits a school or library
    administrator, supervisor, or other person authorized by the
    certifying authority, to disable an entity's technology protection
    measure in order to allow bona fide research or other lawful use by
    an adult.[^127] A number of commenters, particularly libraries,
    express concern that each time an adult user requests that the
    blocking or filtering software be disabled pursuant to these
    provisions, school or library staff would be required to make a
    determination that the user was engaging only in bona fide research
    or other lawful purposes, and staff would then be required to
    disable the technology protection measure.[^128] Many commenters
    caution that staff would be unable to satisfactorily make such
    determinations, and that the requirement would render moot existing
    policies, have a chilling effect on adults' Internet use, and
    significantly impinge on staff time and resources.[^129] We decline
    to promulgate rules mandating how entities should implement these
    provisions. Federally-imposed rules directing school and library
    staff when to disable technology protection measures would likely be
    overbroad and imprecise, potentially chilling speech, or otherwise
    confusing schools and libraries about the requirements of the
    statute. We leave such determinations to the local communities, whom
    we believe to be most knowledgeable about the varying circumstances
    of schools or libraries within those communities.

## Universal Service Funding for CIPA Compliance

54. CIPA clearly prohibits recipients from obtaining discounts under the
    universal service support mechanism for the purchase or acquisition
    of technology protection measures necessary for CIPA
    compliance.[^130] A number of commenters state their opposition to
    this statutory prohibition, arguing, for example, that "the
    legislation should be modified" to allow filtering devices to
    qualify as eligible services.[^131] One commenter proposes
    "modifying the definition of eligible internal connections to be
    products and services necessary to transport information permissible
    under \[CIPA\] all the way to individual classrooms."[^132] Others
    request that we direct SLD to provide universal service funds to
    state education and library agencies for costs associated with
    administrative and outreach activities.[^133]

55. We must reject each of these proposals as inconsistent with the
    plain language of the statute. The statutory language is clear\-- no
    sources of funds other than those available under the Elementary and
    Secondary Act of 1965 or the Library Services and Technology Act are
    authorized for the purchase or acquisition of technology protection
    measures under CIPA.[^134] Thus, recipients may not receive
    universal service discounts for technology protection measures. It
    is the role of the Commission only to interpret and implement the
    directives of Congress, and therefore, we have no authority to
    "modify" CIPA. Nor are we empowered to deem eligible for universal
    service support other costs associated with implementation of CIPA
    that are not otherwise eligible under section 254 of the Act. The
    schools and libraries universal service support mechanism may only
    provide discounts on telecommunications services, Internet access,
    and internal connections.[^135]

#  PROCEDURAL MATTERS 

##  Effective Date

56. We conclude that the effective date of the rules promulgated in this
    Order shall be April 20, 2001, which will be less than thirty days
    after publication in the Federal Register. Although the
    Administrative Procedures Act normally requires 30 days notice
    before rules become effective[^136] the Commission, for good cause,
    may make rules effective with less than 30 days notice.[^137] We
    find such good cause based on the shortened time frame imposed by
    Congress for implementation of CIPA.[^138]

##  Paperwork Reduction Act

57. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and found to impose new or
    modified reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements or burdens on
    the public. Implementation of these new or modified reporting and/or
    recordkeeping requirements will be subject to approval by the Office
    of Management and Budget (OMB) as prescribed by the PRA, and will go
    into effect upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB
    approval.

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

58. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^139] an
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in
    the FNPRM.[^140] The Commission sought written public comments on
    the proposals in the FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This
    present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the
    RFA, as amended.[^141]

### Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

59. The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), included as part of
    the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, Pub. L. 106-554, requires
    the Commission to prescribe regulations in order to implement the
    legislation.[^142] This Order adopts rules that implement CIPA.
    Eligible school and library authorities must certify (1) that they
    are enforcing a policy of Internet safety that includes measures to
    block or filter Internet access for both minors and adults to
    certain visual depictions, (2) that schools' policies of Internet
    safety includes monitoring the online activities of minors, and (3)
    that schools and libraries have adopted and implemented an Internet
    safety policy under section 254(l).[^143]

### Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

60. The Commission received no comments directly addressing the IRFA.
    However some comments dispute our estimate that executing the
    certifications on FCC Form 486 would take approximately one
    minute.[^144] These comments assert that the time requirement was
    longer due to the preparation and information gathering necessary to
    make the CIPA certifications.[^145] This information gathering is
    not a requirement imposed upon schools and libraries by the
    Commission, rather CIPA requires the collection of this data. After
    considering these comments, we conclude that requiring the
    certifications as part of the existing FCC Form 486 process is the
    least burdensome procedure for program participants.

### Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which Rules Will Apply

61. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
    feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^146] The RFA generally
    defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the
    terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
    governmental jurisdiction."[^147] In addition, the term "small
    business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"
    under the Small Business Act.[^148] A small business concern is one
    that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant
    in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
    established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^149] A
    small organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which
    is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
    field."[^150] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately
    275,801 small organizations.[^151] "Small governmental
    jurisdiction"[^152] generally means "governments of cities,
    counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
    districts, with a population of less than 50,000."[^153] As of 1992,
    there were approximately 85,006 governmental entities in the United
    States.[^154] This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and
    towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer
    than 50,000.[^155] The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is
    approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the
    85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (96 percent)
    are small entities.

62. Under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism,
    which provides support for elementary and secondary schools and
    libraries, an elementary school is generally "a non-profit
    institutional day or residential school that provides elementary
    education, as determined under state law."[^156] A secondary school
    is generally as "a non-profit institutional day or residential
    school that provides secondary education, as determined under state
    law," and not offering education beyond grade 12.[^157] For-profit
    schools and libraries, and schools and libraries with endowments in
    excess of \$50,000,000, are not eligible to receive discounts under
    the program, nor are libraries whose budgets are not completely
    separate from any schools.[^158] Certain other statutory definitions
    apply as well.[^159] The SBA has defined as small entities
    elementary and secondary schools and libraries having \$5 million or
    less in annual receipts.[^160] In funding year 2 (July 1, 1999 to
    June 20, 2000) approximately 83,700 schools and 9,000 libraries
    received discounts under the schools and libraries universal service
    mechanism. Although we are unable to estimate with precision the
    number of these entities that would qualify as small entities under
    SBA's definition, we estimate that fewer than 83,700 schools and
    9,000 libraries would be affected annually by the rules promulgated
    in this Order, under current operation of the program.

### Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

63. This Order adopts measures that will result in minimal additional
    reporting. Specifically, the Order requires eligible schools and
    libraries receiving federal universal service support for Internet
    access or internal connections to make one of the following
    certifications on FCC Form 486:

    I certify that, as of the date of the start of discounted services
    (check one)

-   The recipient(s) of service represented in the Funding Request
    Number(s) on this Form 486 has (have) complied with the requirements
    of the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified at 47 U.S.C.
    § 254(h) and (l).

-   Pursuant to the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified at
    47 U.S.C. § 254(h) and (l), the recipient(s) of service represented
    in the Funding Request Number(s) on this Form 486 is (are)
    undertaking such actions, including any necessary procurement
    procedures, to comply with the requirements of CIPA for the next
    funding year, but has (have) not completed all requirements of CIPA
    for this funding year.

-   The Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified at 47 U.S.C. §
    254(h) and (l), does not apply because the recipient(s) of service
    represented in the Funding Request Number(s) on this Form 486 is
    (are) receiving discount services only for telecommunications
    services.

64. A Billed Entity who filed a Form 471 as a "consortium application"
    and who is also a recipient of services as a member of that
    consortium must select one of the above certifications.

65. Furthermore, every Billed Entity who filed a Form 471 as a
    "consortium application" on behalf of consortium members shall make
    one of the following two certifications:

-   I certify as the Billed Entity for the consortium that I have
    collected duly completed and signed Forms 479 from all eligible
    members of the consortium.

-   I certify as the Billed Entity for the consortium that the only
    services that I have been approved for discounts under the universal
    service support mechanism on behalf of eligible members of the
    consortium are telecommunications services, and therefore the
    requirements of the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified
    at 47 U.S.C. § 254(h) and (l), do not apply.

66. The Form 486 certification section shall also include a disclaimer
    stating that the certification language above is not intended to
    fully set forth or explain all the requirements of the statute.

67. The Commission adopts rules, which modify FCC Form 486 to include
    the certification language listed above. This form is already
    completed on a regular basis, and the modification would merely
    require the checking of one additional box prior to signing the
    form. We continue to estimate that it would take no more than one
    minute to review and check the appropriate certification box. The
    Commission concludes that this approach would be the most effective
    procedure for implementation of CIPA's requirements, and the least
    burdensome to recipients.

### Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

68. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
    that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
    include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the
    establishment of differing compliance and reporting requirements or
    timetables that take into account the resources available to small
    entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
    compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small
    entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards;
    and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for
    small entities.[^161]

69. This certification requirement is legislatively mandated by CIPA.
    The Commission is attempting to implement this requirement in the
    most effective and least burdensome manner possible for all
    entities, including small schools and libraries. Given that a
    certification is required by the legislation, we considered the
    alternative of having each school and library submit separate
    documentation, including the appropriate certification, to the
    Commission; however, such an approach seemed unnecessarily
    burdensome, particularly on small entities. In addition, even in
    light of comments that we underestimated the time required to
    complete the certification, we still believe that it is less
    burdensome to certify as part of an ongoing process. The parties\'
    concerns about the time taken to comply with CIPA in order to be
    able to certify are not at issue here. The Commission\'s
    responsibility is to assure the certification of compliance. As
    discussed above, the Commission concludes that adding the
    certification requirement to the existing FCC Form 486 process is
    the least burdensome alternative for implementing the requirements
    of the CIPA.

70. In reaching this conclusion the Commission also considered, as an
    alternative, adding the certification language to the existing FCC
    Form 471. However, the Form 471 is submitted by applicants for
    universal service discounts, whereas CIPA requires certifications by
    recipients. Furthermore, entities completing Form 471 are not
    assured of receiving discounted funds, and consequently might not
    become subject to CIPA requirements. Therefore we have concluded
    that Form 486, which is completed only by recipients of services, is
    more appropriate for CIPA certifications by recipients.[^162]
    Recipients will know by the time they submit the modified Form 486
    that they will receive discounts, which is not the case at the time
    of Form 471 submission.[^163] By certifying on Form 486, recipients
    will only have to certify as to CIPA compliance once they are
    certain of receiving discounted services.

71. **Report to Congress:** The Commission will send a copy of this
    Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to
    Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
    Fairness Act of 1996.[^164] In addition, the Commission will send a
    copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief
    Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of
    the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be
    published in the Federal Register.[^165]

# V. ORDERING CLAUSES  {#v.-ordering-clauses .unnumbered}

72. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
    in sections 1-4, 201-205, 218-220, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154,
    201-205, 318-220, 254, 303(r), 403, section 553 of the
    Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553, and the Children's
    Internet Protection Act, Pub. L. 106-554 §§ 1701 *et seq.* as
    codified at 47 U.S.C. § 254(h) and (l), *In the Matter of
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* Children's Internet
    Protection Act, Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-45 IS ADOPTED.
    The collection of information contained within this Report and Order
    is contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget.

73. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in
    sections 1-4, 201-205, 218-220, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154,
    201-205, 318-220, 254, 303(r), 403, section 553 of the
    Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553, and the Children's
    Internet Protection Act, Pub. L. 106-554 §§ 1701 *et seq.* as
    codified at 47 U.S.C. § 254(h) and (l), section 54.520 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.520 IS ADOPTED, as set forth in
    Appendix C attached hereto.

74. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because the Commission has found good
    cause, this Report and Order and 47 C.F.R. § 54.520, as adopted and
    set forth in Appendix C, are EFFECTIVE April 20, 2001, which is less
    than thirty days following publication in the Federal Register.

75. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AUTHORITY IS DELEGATED to the CHIEF OF
    THE COMMON CARRIER BUREAU pursuant to section 0.291 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.291, to modify, or require the
    filing of, any forms that are necessary to implement the decisions
    and rules adopted in this Report and Order.

76. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX---A**

**PARTIES FILING COMMENTS**

**[Commenter Abbreviation]{.underline}**

Aftab, Parry

American Association of School Administrators AASA

American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation ACLUF

American Library Association ALA

Anthe, Charles

Appleton, Public Library

Ayers, Andrew

Brooklyn Public Library

Cambridge Community Library Board of Trustees Cambridge

Center for Democracy and Technology and CDT/People For

the People for the American Way

Center, Sue L.

Chicago Public Library Chicago

Consortium for School Networking and the International CoSN/ISTE

Society for Technology in Education

Council of Chief State School Officers CCSSC

C/W MARS

Fletcher, Nancy

Funds for Learning FFL

Georgia Department of Education Georgia

Gibson, Carol

Haley, Ed

Illinois Library Association

Illinois State Board of Education Illinois

Internet Safety Association ISA

Istook, Jr., The Honorable Ernest J. Rep. Istook

Kalamazoo Public Library Kalamazoo

Knievel, Michael J.

Koeller, Margaret

Livonia Public Library

Manitowac Public Library Manitowac

McFarland Public Library

Middleton Public Library

Mid-Wisconsin Federated Library System

Missouri Research and Education Network

National Association of Independent Schools NAIS

National Law Center for Children and Families NLC

New Jersey Library Association

New York Library Association NYLA

**APPENDIX---A (continued)**

**PARTIES FILING COMMENTS**

**[Commenter Abbreviation]{.underline}**

North Boston Library Exchange, Inc.

North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services North Carolina

Norwood, Scott

Office of Information Technology Services

Portage Public Library Portage

Society for Technology in Education

Prairie du Dac Public Library

The Library Network Library Network

Rusk County Community Library

Shorewood Public Library

South Central Library

State Library of North Carolina

Sun Prairie Public Library

The Library Network

Thomas, Charles

West Bend Community Memorial Library

Westchester Library System

Whitefish Bay Public Library

Winkle, Sharon

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Wisconsin Library Association

Wyoming State Library

XYZ Public Library

**APPENDIX---B**

**PARTIES FILING REPLY COMMENTS**

**[Commenter Abbreviation]{.underline}**

American Association of School Administrators AASA

American Library Association ALA

Chicago Public Library Chicago

Congressman Ernest Istook Rep. Istook

Consortium for School Networking CoSN/ISTE

International Society for Technology in Education

Donald and Aida Johnson

ESniff.com, Inc.

Internet Safety Association ISA

Michigan Library Association MLA

MOREnet

National Law Center for Children & Families NLC

Southfield Public Schools

Michigan Schools & Libraries

Herrick District Library

Chelsea District Library

Shiawassee District Library

Bullard Sanford Memorial Library

Plymouth District Library

Fremont Area District Library

Wayne RESA

Wisconsin Dept. of Public Instruction

**APPENDIX---C**

**FINAL RULES**

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows:

**PART 54 -- UNIVERSAL SERVICE**

**Subpart F -- Universal Service Support for Schools and Libraries**

1.  The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:

> Authority: 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 201, 205, 214 and 254 unless otherwise
> noted.

77. Add § 54.520 to subpart F to read as follows:

**[§ 54.520]{.underline}** **[Children's Internet Protection Act
certifications required from recipients of discounts under the federal
universal service support mechanism for schools and
libraries.]{.underline}**

**(a) [Definitions.]{.underline}**

\(1\) [School.]{.underline} For the purposes of the certification
requirements of this rule, school means school, school district, local
education agency or other authority responsible for administration of a
school.

\(2\) [Library.]{.underline} For the purposes of the certification
requirements of this rule, library means library, library board or
authority responsible for administration of a library.

\(3\) [Billed Entity.]{.underline} Billed entity is defined in § 54.500.
In the case of a consortium, the billed entity is the lead member of the
consortium.

\(4\) [Statutory Definitions.]{.underline} The terms "minor," "obscene,"
"child pornography," "harmful to minors" and "technology protection
measure" as used in this section, are defined in the Children's Internet
Protection Act § 1721(c).

(b) **[Who is required to make certifications.]{.underline}**

\(1\) A school or library that receives discounts for Internet access
and internal connections services under the federal universal service
support mechanism for schools and libraries, must make such
certifications as described in subsection (c). The certifications
required and described in subsection (c) must be made in each funding
year.

\(2\) Schools and libraries that only receive discounts for
telecommunications services under the federal universal service support
mechanism for schools and libraries are not subject to the requirements
47 U.S.C.§254(h) and (l), but must indicate, pursuant to the
certification requirements in subsection (c), that they only receive
discounts for telecommunications services.

**(c) [Certifications required under 47 U.S.C. § 254(h) and (l).
]{.underline}**

\(1\) [Schools.]{.underline} The billed entity for a school that
receives discounts for Internet access or internal connections must
certify on FCC Form 486 that an Internet safety policy is being
enforced. If the school is an eligible member of a consortium but is not
the billed entity for the consortium, the school must certify instead on
FCC Form 479 ("Certification to Consortium Leader of Compliance with the
Children's Internet Protection Act") that an Internet safety policy is
being enforced.

> \(i\) The Internet safety policy adopted and enforced pursuant to 47
> U.S.C. § 254(h) must include:
>
> \(A\) A technology protection measure that protects against Internet
> access by both adults and minors to visual depictions that are
> obscene, child pornography, or, with respect to use of the computers
> by minors, harmful to minors. This Internet safety policy must also
> include monitoring the online activities of minors.
>
> \(ii\) The Internet safety policy adopted and enforced pursuant to 47
> U.S.C. § 254(l) must address all of the following issues:
>
> \(A\) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet and
> World Wide Web,
>
> \(B\) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail,
> chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications,
>
> \(C\) unauthorized access, including so-called "hacking," and other
> unlawful activities by minors online;
>
> \(D\) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal
> information regarding minors; and
>
> \(E\) measures designed to restrict minors' access to materials
> harmful to minors.
>
> \(iii\) A school must satisfy its obligations to make certifications
> by making one of the following certifications required by subsection
> (c)(1) on FCC Form 486:
>
> \(A\) The recipient(s) of service represented in the Funding Request
> Number(s) on this Form 486 has (have) complied with the requirements
> of the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified at 47 U.S.C. §
> 254(h) and (l).
>
> \(B\) Pursuant to the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified
> at 47 U.S.C. § 254(h) and (l), the recipient(s) of service represented
> in the Funding Request Number(s) on this Form 486 is (are) undertaking
> such actions, including any necessary procurement procedures, to
> comply with the requirements of CIPA for the next funding year, but
> has (have) not completed all requirements of CIPA for this funding
> year.
>
> \(C\) The Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified at 47 U.S.C.
> § 254(h) and (l), does not apply because the recipient(s) of service
> represented in the Funding Request Number(s) on this Form 486 is (are)
> receiving discount services only for telecommunications services.

\(2\) [Libraries]{.underline}. The billed entity for a library that
receives discounts for Internet access and internal connections must
certify, on FCC Form 486, that an Internet safety policy is being
enforced. If the library is an eligible member of a consortium but is
not the billed entity for the consortium, the library must instead
certify on FCC Form 479 ("Certification to Consortium Leader of
Compliance with the Children's Internet Protection Act") that an
Internet safety policy is being enforced.

> \(i\) The Internet safety policy adopted and enforced pursuant to 47
> U.S.C. § 254 (h) must include a technology protection measure that
> protects against Internet access by both adults and minors to visual
> depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or, with respect to
> use of the computers by minors, harmful to minors.
>
> \(ii\) The Internet safety policy adopted and enforced pursuant to 47
> U.S.C. § 254(l) must address all of the following issues:
>
> \(A\) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet and
> World Wide Web;
>
> \(B\) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail,
> chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications;
>
> \(C\) unauthorized access, including so-called "hacking," and other
> unlawful activities by minors online;
>
> \(D\) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal
> information regarding minors; and
>
> \(E\) measures designed to restrict minors' access to materials
> harmful to minors.
>
> \(iii\) A library must satisfy its obligations to make certifications
> by making one of the following certifications required by subsection
> (c)(2) on FCC Form 486:
>
> \(A\) The recipient(s) of service represented in the Funding Request
> Number(s) on this Form 486 has (have) complied with the requirements
> of the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified at 47 U.S.C. §
> 254(h) and (l).
>
> \(B\) Pursuant to the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified
> at 47 U.S.C. § 254(h) and (l), the recipient(s) of service represented
> in the Funding Request Number(s) on this Form 486 is (are) undertaking
> such actions, including any necessary procurement procedures, to
> comply with the requirements of CIPA for the next funding year, but
> has (have) not completed all requirements of CIPA for this funding
> year.
>
> \(C\) The Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified at 47 U.S.C.
> § 254(h) and (l), does not apply because the recipient(s) of service
> represented in the Funding Request Number(s) on this Form 486 is (are)
> receiving discount services only for telecommunications services.

\(3\) [Certifications required from consortia members and billed
entities for consortia]{.underline}*.*

> \(i\) The billed entity of a consortium, as defined in subsection
> (a)(3) other than one requesting only discounts on telecommunications
> services for consortium members, must collect from the authority for
> each of its school and library members, one of the following signed
> certifications on FCC Form 479 ("Certification to Consortium Leader of
> Compliance with the Children's Internet Protection Act"), which must
> be submitted to the billed entity consistent with subpart (c)(1) or
> subpart (c)(2) above:
>
> \(A\) The recipient(s) of service under my administrative authority
> and represented in the Funding Request Number(s) for which you have
> requested or received Funding Commitments has (have) complied with the
> requirements of the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified at
> 47 U.S.C. § 254(h) and (l).
>
> \(B\) Pursuant to the Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified
> at 47 U.S.C. § 254(h) and (l), the recipient(s) of service under my
> administrative authority and represented in the Funding Request
> Number(s) for which you have requested or received Funding Commitments
> is (are) undertaking such actions, including any necessary procurement
> procedures, to comply with the requirements of CIPA for the next
> funding year, but has (have) not completed all requirements of CIPA
> for this funding year.
>
> \(C\) The Children's Internet Protection Act, as codified at 47 U.S.C.
> § 254(h) and (l), does not apply because the recipient(s) of service
> under my administrative authority and represented in the Funding
> Request Number(s) for which you have requested or received Funding
> Commitments is (are) receiving discount services only for
> telecommunications services; and

\(ii\) The billed entity for a consortium, as defined in paragraph
(a)(3), must make one of the following two certifications on FCC Form
486: (1) "I certify as the Billed Entity for the consortium that I have
collected duly completed and signed Forms 479 from all eligible members
of the consortium."; or "(2) I certify as the Billed Entity for the
consortium that the only services that I have been approved for
discounts under the universal service support mechanism on behalf of
eligible members of the consortium are telecommunications services, and
therefore the requirements of the Children's Internet Protection Act, as
codified at 47 U.S.C. § 254(h) and (l), do not apply."; and

\(iii\) The billed entity for a consortium, as defined in paragraph
(a)(3), who filed a FCC Form 471 as a "consortium application" and who
is also a recipient of services as a member of that consortium must
select one of the certifications under subsection (c)(3)(i) on FCC Form
486.

**(d) [Failure to provide certifications.]{.underline}**

\(1\) [Schools and Libraries]{.underline}. A school or library that
knowingly fails to submit certifications as required by this section,
shall not be eligible for discount services under the federal universal
service support mechanism for schools and libraries until such
certifications are submitted.

\(2\) [Consortia]{.underline}. A billed entity's knowing failure to
collect the required certifications from its eligible school and library
members or knowing failure to certify that it collected the required
certifications shall render the entire consortium ineligible for
discounts under the federal universal service support mechanism for
school and libraries.

\(3\) [Reestablishing eligibility]{.underline}. At any time, a school or
library deemed ineligible for discount services under the federal
universal service support mechanism for schools and libraries because of
failure to submit certifications required by this section, may
reestablish eligibility for discounts by providing the required
certifications to the Administrator and the Commission.

**(e) [Failure to comply with the certifications. ]{.underline}**

\(1\) [Schools and Libraries.]{.underline} A school or library that
knowingly fails to ensure the use of computers in accordance with the
certifications required by this section, must reimburse any funds and
discounts received under the federal universal service support mechanism
for schools and libraries for the period in which there was
noncompliance.

\(2\) [Consortia.]{.underline} In the case of consortium applications,
the eligibility for discounts of consortium members who ensure the use
of computers in accordance with the certification requirements of this
section shall not be affected by the failure of other school or library
consortium members to ensure the use of computers in accordance with
such requirements.

\(3\) [Reestablishing compliance.]{.underline} At any time, a school or
library deemed ineligible for discounts under the federal universal
service support mechanism for schools and libraries for failure to
ensure the use of computers in accordance with the certification
requirements of this section and that has been directed to reimburse the
program for discounts received during the period of noncompliance, may
reestablish compliance by ensuring the use of its computers in
accordance with the certification requirements under this section. Upon
submittal to the Commission of a certification or other appropriate
evidence of such remedy, the school or library shall be eligible for
discounts under the universal service mechanism.

**(f) [Waivers based on state or local procurement rules and regulations
and competitive bidding requirements.]{.underline}**

Waivers shall be granted to schools and libraries when the authority
responsible for making the certifications required by this section,
cannot make the required certifications because its state or local
procurement rules or regulations or competitive bidding requirements,
prevent the making of the certification otherwise required. The waiver
shall be granted upon the provision, by the authority responsible for
making the certifications on behalf of schools or libraries, that the
schools or libraries will be brought into compliance with the
requirements of this section, before the start of the third program year
after April 20, 2001 in which the school or library is applying for
funds under this title.

**(g) [Funding year certification deadlines.]{.underline}**

\(1\) [Funding Year 4.]{.underline} For Funding Year 4, billed entities
shall provide one of the certifications required under subsection
(c)(1), (c)(2) or (c)(3) to the Administrator on an FCC Form 486
postmarked no later than October 28, 2001.

\(2\) [Funding Year 5 and subsequent funding years.]{.underline} For
Funding Year 5 and for subsequent funding years, billed entities shall
provide one of the certifications required under subsection (c)(1),
(c)(2) or (c)(3) in accordance with the existing program guidelines
established by the Administrator.

#  {#section .unnumbered}

[^1]: *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service*, CC Docket No.
    96-45, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 01-31 (rel.
    January 23, 2001) (*Notice*). For unabbreviated names of parties
    filing comments and reply comments, *see* Appendices A and B to this
    Order.

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h), (l), as amended. Any other references in this
    Order to section 254 or any subsections refer to those sections as
    amended by CIPA unless otherwise specifically noted. In the
    *Notice*, we referred to the Children's Internet Protection Act as
    "the CHIP Act." Many of the comments and reply comments received
    pursuant to the *Notice* refer to the legislation, however, as
    "CIPA." We shall henceforth refer to the Children's Internet
    Protection Act as "CIPA."

[^3]: Pub. L. No. 106-554. Section 1721 of CIPA amends section 254(h) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 *et
    seq.* Section 1721 references section 1732 of the Children's
    Internet Protection Act, which amends section 254 of the
    Communications Act by adding a new subsection (l) at the end of
    section 254. Sections 1731-1733 of CIPA are also referred to as the
    Neighborhood Children's Internet Protection Act (NCIPA). Pub. L.
    106-554 §§ 1731 *et seq.* Sections 1711 and 1712 of the Children's
    Internet Protection Act amend, respectively, the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6801 *et seq*., and
    the Museum and Library Services Act, 20 U.S.C. § 9134(b), and
    therefore do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Commission.

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h).

[^5]: Although CIPA refers to the provision of discounts for Internet
    access, Internet services, and internal connections, *see* 47 U.S.C.
    § 254(h)(5)(A)(ii), (6)(A)(ii), the schools and libraries universal
    service support mechanism does not support Internet services.

[^6]: CIPA § 1721(h). CIPA was enacted on December 21, 2000. The
    Commission must also prescribe regulations pursuant to section
    254(l) as of April 20, 2001 as well. *See* Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554) § 1733.

[^7]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 254(l)(2).

[^8]: *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service*, CC Docket No.
    96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776 (1997) (*Universal Service
    Order*), as corrected by *Federal‑State Joint Board on Universal
    Service*, CC Docket No. 96‑45, Errata, FCC 97‑157 (rel. June 4,
    1997), *affirmed in part*, *Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel
    v. FCC*, 183 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1999) (affirming *Universal Service
    Order* in part and reversing and remanding on unrelated grounds),
    *cert. denied, Celpage, Inc. v. FCC*, 120 S. Ct. 2212 (May 30,
    2000), *cert. denied,* *AT&T Corp. v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co*., 120
    S. Ct. 2237 (June 5, 2000*), cert. dismissed,* *GTE Service Corp. v.
    FCC*, 121 S. Ct. 423 (November 2, 2000).

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503.

[^10]: Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange
    Carrier Association, Inc., Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
    Service*, CC Docket Nos. 97-21 and 96-45, Third Report and Order in
    CC Docket No. 97-21 and Fourth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket
    No. 97-21 and Eighth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No.
    96-45, 13 FCC Rcd 25058 (1998)* (Eighth Order on Reconsideration)*.*

[^11]: *See* Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Services Ordered
    and Certification Form, OMB 3060-0806 (October 2000) (Form 471).

[^12]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(c).

[^13]: Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Receipt of Service
    Confirmation Form, OMB 3060-0853 (April 2000) (Form 486);
    Instructions for Completing the Schools and Libraries Universal
    Service, Receipt of Service Confirmation Form (FCC Form 486), OMB
    3060-0853 (April 2000) (Form 486 Instructions).

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(A), (6)(A).

[^15]: Hereinafter we will refer collectively to all of the persons
    specified in the statute as responsible for making these
    certifications on behalf of participating schools and libraries as
    "entities." These include, in the case of a school, a "school,
    school board, local education agency, or other authority with
    responsibility for administration of the school." *See*, *e.g.,* 47
    U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(A)(i). In the case of a library, certifying
    entities include a "library, library board, or other authority with
    responsibility for administration of a library." *See, e.g.,* 47
    U.S.C. § 254(h)(6)(A)(i). *See also* para. 50.

[^16]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h).

[^17]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(B)(i). The statute does not extend this
    requirement to libraries. 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(6)(B)(i).

[^18]: Pub. L. 106-554 § 1702(b).

[^19]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(A)(iii), (6)(A)(iii).

[^20]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(l)(1)(A). *See also* § 254(h)(5)(A)(i)(II),
    (6)(A)(i)(II) (requiring certifications concerning section 254(l)).

[^21]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(l)(1)(B).

[^22]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(F)(i, iii), (6)(F)(i, iii.)

[^23]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(F)(ii-iii), (6)(F)(ii-iii.)

[^24]: *See* *Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange
    Carrier Association, Inc., Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
    Service,* CC Docket Nos. 97-21 and 96-45, Order, FCC 99-291, paras.
    8-9 (rel. October 8, 1999) (reconsideration pending); *Changes to
    the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association,
    Inc., Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* CC Docket
    Nos. 97-21 and 96-45, Order, FCC 00-350 (rel. October 26, 2000)
    (appeal pending), *United States Telecommunications Association v.
    Federal Communications Commission,* No. 00-1500, filed November 27,
    2000.

[^25]: *Id.*

[^26]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(F), (6)(F).

[^27]: *Notice* at para. 10.

[^28]: *See, e.g.,* CDT/People For Comments at 3-10 (alleging the
    unconstitutionality of CIPA and urging the Commission to refuse to
    promulgate rules implementing the legislation); ACLUF Comments at 1
    (alleging facial unconstitutionality of CIPA, but recognizing the
    Commission's statutory obligations to engage in rulemaking). The
    ACLUF Comments were untimely filed, but we will nonetheless accept
    them as *ex parte* filings under section 1.1206 of our rules. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 1.1206. On March 20, 2001, claims were brought in
    federal court challenging the constitutionality of sections 1712 and
    1721 of CIPA. *See* *American Library Ass'n v. United States*, No.
    01-CV-1303 (E.D. Pa. filed March 20, 2001); *Multnomah County Public
    Library v. United States,* No. 01-CV-1322 (E.D. Pa. filed March 20,
    2001).

[^29]: *See, e.g.,* ACLJ at 3-14.

[^30]: *Johnson v. Robinson*, 415 U.S. 361, 368 (1974).

[^31]: We also decline to include language proposed by commenters
    stating that constitutionally-protected rights to information should
    not be abrogated, and that failure to protect those rights is a
    violation of CIPA. *See, e.g.,* NYLA Comments at 1. We find that the
    statute does not require such language.

[^32]: CIPA § 1721(h). *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 254(l) (stating that
    section 254(l) "becomes effective on or after \[April 20, 2001.\]").

[^33]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(E), (6)(E).

[^34]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(E), (6)(E).

[^35]: *Notice* at para. 4.

[^36]: *See, e.g.,* Library Network Comments at 1; North Carolina
    Comments at 2. We caution entities that because October 28, 2001
    falls on a Sunday, any certifications postmarked on Monday, October
    29, 2001 will be untimely.

[^37]: *See, e.g.,* CoSN/ISTE Comments at 11-12.

[^38]: *See* ALA Comments at 2-4.

[^39]: *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 54.507 (defining "funding year" for
    purposes of the annual program cap); *Federal-State Joint Board on
    Universal Service*, Docket No. 96-45, Fifth Order on Reconsideration
    and Fourth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 14915, 14920, para. 8 (1998)
    (*Fifth Order on Reconsideration*)(changing the funding year for the
    schools and libraries universal service support mechanism from a
    calendar year cycle (January 1 -- December 31) to a fiscal year
    cycle (July 1 -- June 30)).

[^40]: *See, e.g.,* Instructions for Completing the Schools and
    Libraries Universal Service, Services Ordered and Certification Form
    (FCC Form 471), OMB 3060-0806, at 7 (October 2000) (Form 471
    Instructions) (stating that "\[f\]unding years begin on July 1 and
    end on June 30 each year.").

[^41]: *See, e.g.,* SLD web site, Program Description For the 2001-2002
    Funding Year (November, 2000), at 16 (stating that "\[f\]unding is
    on a fiscal year basis, beginning July 1^st^ of each year and
    running through the following June."),
    \<[http://www.sl.universalservice.org/reference](http://www.sl.universalservice.org/reference/eligible.asp)\>.

[^42]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(E)(ii)(II)(aa), (6)(E)(ii)(II)(aa). CIPA
    provides that a school or library that does not have in place the
    policy of Internet safety and technology protection measure required
    by section 254(h) shall certify "for the first program year after
    the effective date of this subsection in which it is applying for
    funds" that it is "undertaking such actions, including any necessary
    procurement procedures, to put in place an Internet safety policy
    and technology protection measures meeting the requirements
    necessary . . . ." 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(E)(ii)(II), (6)(E)(ii)(II).
    ("\[F\]or the second program year after the effective date of this
    subsection in which it is applying for funds under this subsection,
    \[the entity\] shall certify that it is in compliance with \[the
    relevant provisions\]."). *Id*

[^43]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(E)(ii)(II)(bb), (6)(E)(ii)(II)(bb).

[^44]: *See* ALA Comments at 4.

[^45]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(B-C), (6)(B-C), (5)(A)(i), (6)(A)(i),
    (5)(E), (6)(E).

[^46]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5), (h)(6).

[^47]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(l)(3).

[^48]: CIPA § 1733.

[^49]: *Compare, e.g.,* 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(B-C), (6)(B-C) (requiring
    measures to block or filter visual depictions that are "harmful to
    minors") *with* § 254(l)(1)(A) (implementing a policy regarding
    restricting minors' access to materials that are "harmful to
    minors."). *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 254(l)(1)(A)(iii) (requiring the
    Internet safety policy under that section to address issues not
    dealt with by section 254(h), such as unlawful access by minors
    online).

[^50]: *Compare* 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(B)(i)(III), (6)(B)(i)(III)
    (barring visual depictions that are harmful to minors) *with* §
    254(l)(1)(A)(v)(requiring Internet safety policies to address
    measures designed to restrict minors' access to materials harmful to
    minors).

[^51]: *See, e.g.,* ALA Comments at 4 (arguing that the most efficient
    and timely, and least burdensome and confusing, approach dictates
    coupling the certification requirements of the two sections).

[^52]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(E), (6)(E).

[^53]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(E)(i)(II), (6)(E)(i)(II).

[^54]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(E)(ii)(II)(aa), (6)(E)(ii)(II)(aa).

[^55]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(E)(ii)(II)(bb), (6)(E)(ii)(II)(bb).

[^56]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(E)(ii)(III), (6)(E)(ii)(III).

[^57]: *See, e.g.,* Cambridge Comments at 1; Form 486. A Billed Entity
    submits the FCC Form 486 to SLD to indicate that it (or the eligible
    entities it represents) is receiving or has received service from
    the service provider(s) with which it contracted for eligible
    services. When SLD receives a properly completed Form 486, that
    event triggers the process for the actual payment of discounts to
    the service providers. An entity is considered a "Billed Entity" if
    it is responsible for making the payments directly to a service
    provider. *See* Form 471 Instructions at 3.

[^58]: *See* Form 471; *Notice* at para. 7.

[^59]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(A)(i), (6)(A)(i).

[^60]: Under existing Commission procedures, recipients may amend their
    FCC Forms 486 by submitting an FCC Form 500. *See* Schools and
    Libraries Universal Service, Adjustment to Funding Commitment and
    Modification to Receipt of Service Confirmation Form, OMB 3060-0853
    (April 2000) (Form 500). We conclude that an entity that submits a
    Form 486 with the required certifications, and that subsequently
    fall out of compliance and therefore must cancel a Funding Request
    Number (FRN), may submit a Form 500 for that purpose.

[^61]: *See, e.g.,* FFL Comments at 3-4.

[^62]: *See, e.g.,* ALA Comments at 6-7.

[^63]: *See*, e.g., FFL Comments at 2-4.

[^64]: *See* *id.*

[^65]: We also recognize that in certain limited instances, some
    entities will not receive services, for which a FCC Form 486 will be
    filed, until after October 28, 2001. We direct the Bureau, working
    with SLD, to address this situation.

[^66]: *Compare, e.g.,* 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(A-C) *with* §
    254(h)(5)(E)(ii).

[^67]: AASA Comments at 2.

[^68]: *Compare, e.g.,* 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(6)(E)(ii)(III) *with* §
    254(h)(6)(E)(ii)(I-II).

[^69]: A Billed Entity is the entity that remits payment to service
    providers for services rendered to eligible schools and libraries.
    47 C.F.R. § 54.500(a). In the case of a consortium, the Billed
    Entity is the lead member of the consortium. *See Federal-State
    Joint Board on Universal Service, Access Charge Reform, Price Cap
    Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate
    Structure and Pricing, End User Common Line Charge*, CC Docket Nos.
    96-45, 96-262, 94-1, 91-213, and 95-72, Fourth Order on
    Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order in CC
    Docket Nos. 96-45, 96-262, 94-1, 91-213, 95-72, 13 FCC Rcd 5318
    (1997).

[^70]: *Notice* at para. 8.

[^71]: *See, e.g.,* CoSN/ISTE Comments at 8-9.

[^72]: Those consortia whose members are receiving only
    telecommunications services, and to whom the requirements of CIPA
    therefore do not apply, need not provide Forms 479 to the Billed
    Entity of the consortium. The Billed Entity for such consortia shall
    certify that the requirements of CIPA do not apply.

[^73]: *See id.* at 14-15; Georgia Comments at 4.

[^74]: *See, e.g.,* ALA Comments at 7-8 (supporting this approach).

[^75]: *See, e.g.,* CCSSO Comments at 2.

[^76]: *See, e.g.,* CCSSC at 2; Illinois Comments at 8.

[^77]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(F), (6)(F). CIPA's explicit requirement
    that a school or library reimburse funds does not affect our
    procedures for obtaining reimbursement in other situations from a
    service provider. *See* *Changes to the Board of Directors of the
    National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., Federal-State Joint
    Board on Universal Service,* CC Docket Nos. 97-21 and 96-45, Order,
    FCC 99-291, paras. 8-9 (rel. October 8, 1999) (*reconsideration
    pending*); *Changes to the Board of Directors of the National
    Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., Federal-State Joint Board on
    Universal Service,* CC Docket Nos. 97-21 and 96-45, Order, FCC
    00-350 (rel. October 26, 2000) (*appeal pending*), *United States
    Telecommunications Association v. Federal Communications
    Commission,* No. 00-1500, filed November 27, 2000.

[^78]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(A)(ii), (6)(A)(ii).

[^79]: *Notice* at para. 1 n.3; 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503.

[^80]: *See, e.g.,* CoSN/ISTE Comments at 17-18.

[^81]: *See, e.g.,* Rep. Istook Comments at 5-6.

[^82]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(B-C)(i), (6)(B-C)(i).

[^83]: *See, e.g.,* ALA Comments at 9.

[^84]: *Id*.

[^85]: *See, e.g.,* NLC Reply Comments at 4; 47 U.S.C. §
    254(h)(5)(B-C)(i), (6)(B-C)(i).

[^86]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(D), (6)(D).

[^87]: *See*, e.g., Kalamazoo Comments at 1.

[^88]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(6)(D).

[^89]: *See, e.g.,* Rep. Istook Comments at 5; NLC Comments at 1-2;
    ACLUF Comments at 1.

[^90]: *See, e.g.,* ACLUF Comments at 1-2.

[^91]: *See, e.g.,* NLC Comment at 2.

[^92]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 254(h), (l).

[^93]: *See, e.g.,* Portage Comments at 1.

[^94]: *See, e.g.,* ALA Reply Comments at 1.

[^95]: *See, e.g.,* Chicago Comments at 1-2.

[^96]: Under CIPA, the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration shall, not later than 18 months after the statute's
    December 21, 2000 enactment date, initiate a notice and comment
    proceeding for purposes of evaluating the effectiveness of existing
    technology protection measures and Internet safety policies. CIPA §
    1703(a).

[^97]: *See, e.g.,* ISA Comments at 2.

[^98]: *See, e.g.,* NLC Comments at 2.

[^99]: Rep. Istook Comments at 3-4.

[^100]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 254(h), (l).

[^101]: *See, e.g.,* NLC Comments at 2.

[^102]: *Id.*

[^103]: *See, e.g.,* ACLJ Comments at 14-15.

[^104]: *See, e.g.,* CoSN/ISTE Reply Comments at 3-18.

[^105]: We also choose not to ask, nor are we able to direct, the
    Secretary of Education and the Director of the Institute of Museum
    and Library Services to develop and disclose an annual summary of
    compliance statistics, as suggested by some commenters. *See* Rep.
    Istook Comments at 5; NLC Comments at 3. Our decision does not in
    any way prohibit other government agencies from determining their
    own role, if any, in implementing CIPA.

[^106]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(A), (6)(A).

[^107]: *Notice* at para. 10.

[^108]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(A), (5)(F)(i, iii), (6)(A), (6)(F)(i,
    iii.)

[^109]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(F)(ii-iii), (6)(F)(ii-iii.)

[^110]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(F)(iii), (6)(F)(iii.)

[^111]: *See* *Changes to the Board of Directors of the National
    Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., Federal-State Joint Board on
    Universal Service,* CC Docket Nos. 97-21 and 96-45, Order, FCC
    99-291, paras. 8-9 (rel. October 8, 1999) (*reconsideration
    pending*); *Changes to the Board of Directors of the National
    Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., Federal-State Joint Board on
    Universal Service,* CC Docket Nos. 97-21 and 96-45, Order, FCC
    00-350 (rel. October 26, 2000) (*appeal pending*), *United States
    Telecommunications Association v. Federal Communications
    Commission,* No. 00-1500, filed November 27, 2000.

[^112]: *Id.*

[^113]: ^,^

[^114]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(F)(i), (6)(F)(i) (any school or library
    "that knowingly fails to comply with the application guidelines
    regarding the annual submission of certification required by this
    *paragraph* shall not be eligible for services at discount rates . .
    . .").

[^115]: ^.^

[^116]: As explained above, subsections 254(h)(5)(F)(ii) and (6)(F)(ii)
    address the remedies for a school's or library's knowing failure to
    comply with the certification requirements of subsections
    254(h)(5)(B-C) and (6)(B-C).

[^117]: ^"^

[^118]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(A), (6)(A).

[^119]: *See* Rep. Istook Comments at 6.

[^120]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(A)(iii).

[^121]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(6)(A)(iii).

[^122]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(l)(1)(B).

[^123]: *See, e.g.,* Illinois Comments at 7-8.

[^124]: We thus reject the view that even those entities that have
    already fulfilled the notice and hearing requirements for Internet
    safety policies and technology protection measures that meet the
    statutory requirements must again engage in notice and hearing
    requirements. *See, e.g.,* ISA Reply Comments at 2.

[^125]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(A)(iii) (emphasis added).

[^126]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(7)(A), as amended; Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 8801; 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(7)(A),
    as amended.

[^127]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(D), (6)(D).

[^128]: *See, e.g.,* Manitowac Comments at 1.

[^129]: *See, e.g.,* NYLA Comments at 1-2.

[^130]: CIPA § 1721(g).

[^131]: *See, e.g.,* Illinois Comments at 5.

[^132]: FFL Comments at 5.

[^133]: *See, e.g.,* NYLA at 5.

[^134]: CIPA § 1721(g).

[^135]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503.

[^136]: ^,^

[^137]: *Administrative Procedures Act*, 5 U.S.C. § 553(d).

[^138]: *See* CIPA §§ 1721(f, h) and 1733, 47 U.S.C. § 254(l)(4). CIPA
    became law on December 21, 2000 and imposed a 120-day deadline for
    implementation. *See id.*

[^139]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et seq.*,
    has been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^140]: Federal State Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-94,
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 01-31 (rel. Jan. 23,
    2001).

[^141]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^142]: *See* Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 105-554),
    §§ 1721(f), 1733.

[^143]: 47 U.SC. § 254(l).

[^144]: *See, e.g.,* AASA Comments at 2.

[^145]: *Id.*

[^146]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^147]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^148]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
    establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^149]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^150]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^151]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^152]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1162.

[^153]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^154]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "1992 Census of
    Governments."

[^155]: *Id*.

[^156]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.500(b).

[^157]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.500(j).

[^158]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.501.

[^159]: *See* *id.*

[^160]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Codes 8211, 8231.

[^161]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^162]: *See* Funds for Learning, Comments at 3-4.

[^163]: *See* American Library Association, Comments at 6-7.

[^164]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^165]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).