Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85157 

§ 334.1380 Marine Corps Base Hawaii 

(MCBH), Kaneohe Bay, Island of Oahu, 

Hawaii—Ulupau Crater Weapons Training 

Range; danger zone. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Weapons firing at the Ulupau 

Crater Weapons Training Range may 

occur at any time between 6 a.m. and 2 

a.m., Monday through Sunday. * * * 

* * * * * 

Thomas P. Smith, 

Chief, Operations and Regulatory Division. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26793 Filed 12–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 21–31; FCC 23–91; FRS 

ID 185870] 

Addressing the Homework Gap 

Through the E-Rate Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) initiates a proceeding to 

address the ongoing remote learning 

needs of today’s students, school staff, 

and library patrons through the E-Rate 

program and to ensure the millions who 

have benefitted from the Emergency 

Connectivity Fund program support do 

not fall back onto the wrong side of the 

digital divide once the program ends. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

January 8, 2024 and reply comments are 

due on or before January 22, 2024. If you 

anticipate that you will be submitting 

comments but find it difficult to do so 

within the period of time allowed by 

this document, you should advise the 

contact listed below as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments. You 

may submit comments, identified by 

WC Docket No. 21–31, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings at its headquarters. 

This is a temporary measure taken to 

help protect the health and safety of 

individuals, and to mitigate the 

transmission of COVID–19. See FCC 

Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020), 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

• People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

• Availability of Documents: 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be publicly 

available online via ECFS. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Molly O’Conor molly.oconor@fcc.gov in 

the Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

202–418–7400 or TTY: 202–418–0578. 

Requests for accommodations should be 

made as soon as possible in order to 

allow the agency to satisfy such requests 

whenever possible. Send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer 

and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 

(202) 418–0530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s 

Addressing the Homework Gap through 

the E-Rate Program, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket No. 

21–31; FCC 23–91, adopted November 

1, 2023 and released November 8, 2023. 

The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection during 

regular business hours at Commission’s 

headquarters 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554 or at the 

following internet address: https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-erate-support-wi-fi-hotspots. 

I. Introduction 

1. High-speed internet is critical to 

educational equity, economic 

opportunity, job creation, and civic 

engagement. Since its inception, the 

Federal Communications Commission’s 

(Commission) E-Rate program has 

supported high-speed, affordable 

internet services to and within school 

and library buildings, and has been 

instrumental in providing students and 

library patrons with access to the 

essential broadband services that are 

required for next-generation learning. 

But advances in technology have 

changed the modern learning 

environment to increasingly employ 

interactive online education tools that 

can be used anywhere, at any time, 

allowing students to develop the digital 

skills needed to prosper in the 21st 

Century. The ongoing proliferation of 

innovative digital learning technologies 

and the need to connect students, 

teachers, and library patrons to jobs, 

life-long learning, and information have 

led to a steady rise in the demand for 

broadband connectivity both inside and 

outside of school and library buildings. 

In response to those needs, the 

Commission proposes and seeks 

comment on updates to the E-Rate 

program to ensure the program is 

equipped to support the ongoing remote 

learning needs of today’s students, 

school staff, and library patrons. 

2. In recent years, the demand for 

connectivity beyond school and library 

buildings became a crisis when the 

COVID–19 pandemic disrupted 

operations and caused schools and 

libraries across the country to 

temporarily close their doors. Millions 

of students caught in the ‘‘Homework 

Gap’’—i.e., students unable to fully 

participate in educational opportunities 

because they lack broadband 

connectivity in their homes—suddenly 

found themselves unable to participate 

in education at all. Library patrons who 

relied on their local libraries for remote 

learning opportunities and internet 

access suddenly experienced a loss of 

these critical services when most, if not 

all, library buildings closed their doors 

by the summer of 2020. However, even 

before the COVID–19 pandemic, the 

Homework Gap affected somewhere 

between 8.5 to 16 million K–12 

students, leaving 15% of U.S. 

households with children ages six to 

seventeen lacking a high-speed internet 

connection at home and approximately 

one in four households without highspeed internet access. Although the ERate program helped approximately 

98% of the K–12 schools and districts 

in the country meet the Commission’s 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85158 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

connectivity goals by 2018 by providing 

support for broadband connections to 

and within schools, and approximately 

12,000 distinct libraries from across the 

nation receive E-Rate support each year 

for broadband connections to and 

within libraries, the increasing shift to 

online and remote instruction 

highlighted the need to connect the 

millions of students, school staff, and 

library patrons who had no at-home 

broadband connectivity. To address this 

longstanding critical need, Congress 

created the Emergency Connectivity 

Fund (ECF), which allowed the 

Commission to create the nation’s first 

ever federal program designed to 

address the Homework Gap by 

providing funding for connected 

devices, Wi-Fi hotspot devices, 

broadband connections, and other 

eligible equipment and services for 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons in need for use at locations 

outside of their school or library. 

3. Over the past two years, the ECF 

program’s funding of internet access 

services through Wi-Fi hotspots has 

enabled significant progress in 

expanding digital learning, addressing 

digital and educational equity, and 

closing the Homework Gap by providing 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons with access to broadband 

connections. Schools in Oakland, 

California reported that they nearly 

closed the Homework Gap for their 

students through the use of ECF-funded 

Wi-Fi hotspots and internet access 

services. Libraries, like the Boston 

Public Library, established ECF-funded 

Wi-Fi hotspot lending programs to 

provide the hotspot equipment and 

monthly mobile broadband services 

needed to connect thousands of their 

most vulnerable residents to library 

resources. These are just two examples 

of the many ways that schools and 

libraries across the nation have relied on 

ECF support to fulfill the remote 

learning needs of their students, school 

staff, and library patrons who otherwise 

lacked access to these resources. 

4. Following three successful 

application filing windows and more 

than two years of funding broadband 

services for students, school staff, and 

library patrons with unmet needs, ECF 

funding is nearly fully obligated, and 

the program will sunset on June 30, 

2024. As the Commission approaches 

the sunsetting of the ECF program, the 

Commission has committed more than 

$123 million for the purchase of Wi-Fi 

hotspot devices and nearly $1.3 billion 

for the associated services to provide 

off-premises broadband connectivity to 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons who otherwise would lack 

sufficient broadband access needed to 

fully engage in remote learning. 

Building on its experience with the ECF 

program, the Commission now 

reexamines the E-Rate program and 

seeks comment on proposals and 

potential actions the Commission could 

take to support the needs of students, 

school staff, and library patrons who 

risk losing access to essential broadband 

connections necessary to engage in 

educational opportunities once the ECF 

program sunsets. 

5. In the NPRM, the Commission 

initiates a proceeding to address the 

ongoing remote learning needs of 

today’s students, school staff, and 

library patrons through the E-Rate 

program and to ensure the millions who 

have benefitted from ECF program 

support do not fall back onto the wrong 

side of the digital divide once the 

program ends. Specifically, the 

Commission proposes to permit eligible 

schools and libraries to receive E-Rate 

support for Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless 

internet services that can be used offpremises. The Commission proposes to 

find that the off-premises use of Wi-Fi 

hotspots and internet services by 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons for remote learning and the 

provision of virtual library services 

constitutes an educational purpose as 

defined by the Commission and 

enhances access to advanced 

telecommunications and information 

services for schools and libraries. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how to adapt the E-Rate program to 

reflect the virtual nature of today’s 

modern educational environment. 

Additionally, the Commission seeks 

comment on the applicability of the 

Children‘s internet Protection Act 

(CIPA) requirements and the offpremises use of E-Rate-supported 

hotspots and services. In considering 

whether to support the off-premises use 

of Wi-Fi hotspots and internet access 

services, the NPRM seeks to balance the 

need to modernize the E-Rate program 

to support today’s technology-based 

learning environment with the need to 

ensure the limited E-Rate funding 

remains available for its primary 

purpose of providing connectivity to 

schools and libraries, and is protected 

from potential waste, fraud, and abuse. 

II. Discussion 

6. The Commission proposes to 

modernize the E-Rate program in 

recognition of the technologically 

advanced educational needs of students, 

school staff, and library patrons that 

persist even when they are not 

physically at their school or library, by 

making the off-premises use of Wi-Fi 

hotspots and services eligible for E-Rate 

support. Broadband access is proven to 

improve individuals’ educational 

outcomes, while lack of access has been 

shown to severely hamper educational 

opportunities. Yet, for years, the 

adoption of broadband connectivity in 

today’s educational settings has 

outpaced the adoption of broadband 

connectivity in the homes of students, 

school staff, and library patrons 

throughout the country. As a result, 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons who lack adequate access to 

broadband connectivity are left further 

and further behind. Over the course of 

the last two years, the ECF program has 

bridged some of the gap between 

individuals with home broadband 

access and individuals caught on the 

wrong side of the digital and 

educational divide. Schools and 

libraries have maximized their limited 

ECF funding by establishing Wi-Fi 

hotspot lending programs, and ensuring 

that as many students, school staff, and 

library patrons in need as possible had 

access to broadband connectivity 

outside of the school or library building. 

With ECF support, approximately 6,800 

schools, libraries, and consortia of 

schools and libraries purchased Wi-Fi 

hotspot devices and associated services, 

and were able to provide much-needed 

mobile broadband connectivity through 

ECF-funded Wi-Fi hotspots to more than 

1.1 million students, school staff, and 

library patrons who otherwise lacked 

internet access services sufficient to 

engage in remote learning. In the NPRM, 

the Commission seeks to continue 

supporting ECF-funded broadband 

connectivity and proposes to allow ERate support to fund the off-premises 

use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services to 

ensure that the students, school staff, 

and library patrons who lack broadband 

connectivity remain supported after the 

ECF program sunsets. The Commission 

also seeks comment on how the it can 

implement funding for the off-premises 

use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services 

within existing E-Rate program 

processes, what actions are necessary to 

safeguard these critical funds from any 

potential waste, fraud, or abuse, and its 

authority to adopt the measures 

described in the NPRM. 

A. Making Off-Premises Use of Wi-Fi 

Hotspots and Services Eligible for ERate Support 

7. The Commission proposes to 

permit schools and libraries to receive 

E-Rate support for Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services that can be used off-premises 

by students, school staff, and library 

patrons, finding that these services serve 

a critical educational purpose and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85159 

enhance the ability of students, school 

staff, and library patrons to access 

advanced telecommunications and 

information services. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposal and, if 

adopted, how best to implement the 

proposed measures in a manner that 

ensures that schools and libraries target 

their students, school staff, and library 

patrons who lack internet access, while 

simultaneously protecting limited ERate funds. In particular, the 

Commission seeks information and data 

from schools and libraries that have 

used Wi-Fi hotspots and services for 

remote learning and/or implemented 

Wi-Fi hotspot lending programs to 

provide service to students, school staff, 

and library patrons who would 

otherwise lack broadband access outside 

of their school or library. 

1. Equipment and Service Eligibility 

8. In proposing to make Wi-Fi hotspot 

devices eligible for E-Rate support, the 

Commission seeks comment on what 

devices should be covered. In the ECF 

program, a Wi-Fi hotspot is defined as 

a device that is capable of (a) receiving 

advanced telecommunications and 

information services; and (b) sharing 

such services with a connected device 

through the use of Wi-Fi. For the E-Rate 

program, the Commission proposes to 

limit eligibility to Wi-Fi hotspots 

receiving mobile services and seek 

comment on whether this is the right 

approach. Are there any devices that 

perform the same functions as a Wi-Fi 

hotspot that are not covered by this 

definition and that should be included? 

Conversely, is the ECF program’s 

definition of Wi-Fi hotspot 

overinclusive and could it encompass 

devices that go beyond the intended 

purpose of meeting the remote learning 

needs of students, school staff, and 

library patrons with unmet need? The 

Commission encourages commenters to 

provide specific examples of any 

equivalent or similar equipment and/or 

services, or equipment and/or services 

that should be considered ineligible. 

Should Wi-Fi hotspots be treated as 

internal connections, as the State of 

Colorado has argued? The Commission 

notes that in defining the scope of ERate program eligibility for internal 

connections, the Commission has 

previously declined to support 

‘‘computers and other peripheral 

equipment’’ because it found that only 

equipment that is an essential element 

in the transmission of information is 

eligible (e.g., internal connections). The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

Wi-Fi hotspot devices are ‘‘peripheral 

equipment’’ or if they serve the 

necessary transmission function 

contemplated by the Commission to be 

considered internal connections, like 

wireless access points. 

9. Consistent with the ECF program, 

the Commission also proposes to limit 

Wi-Fi hotspot device eligibility to Wi-Fi 

hotspots for individual users. The 

Commission proposes to treat as 

ineligible multi-user hotspot devices or 

smartphones. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. 

Additionally, the ECF rules limited 

support to the purchase of one Wi-Fi 

hotspot device per student, school staff 

member, or library patron. Should the 

Commission similarly adopt a per-user 

limitation in the E-Rate program or 

consider a per-household limit? What 

should that limit be? Is an individual 

Wi-Fi hotspot capable of connecting 

more than one user at a time without 

degrading the quality of the connectivity 

or compromising connectivity 

altogether? In considering whether to 

impose some limit, the Commission 

seeks to balance the goals of 

administrative ease, such as 

implementing a simple one-perhousehold limit, with the needs of all 

households, including multi-student 

households. Some sources state that WiFi hotspot devices have a useful life of 

three to five years. In commenters’ 

experience, is this the typical length of 

the useful life of Wi-Fi hotspots? If the 

Commission funds Wi-Fi hotspots, 

should the Commission limit their 

eligibility to purchases made once every 

three years or adopt some other 

eligibility timeframe? The Commission 

seeks comment on these questions and 

request that commenters provide any 

available supporting data. 

10. With respect to wireless internet 

access services, the Commission 

proposes to limit the use of services to 

those that can be supported by and 

delivered with Wi-Fi hotspots provided 

to an individual user (as opposed to 

multi-user hotspots). Pursuant to this 

proposal, schools and libraries would be 

able to seek E-Rate support for 

commercially available internet access 

services (e.g., a data plan) that will be 

used on any individual user Wi-Fi 

hotspot, including E-Rate- or ECFfunded hotspots, previously purchased 

hotspots, and/or student-, staff 

member-, or patron-owned hotspots. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the quality of internet 

access services that should be eligible 

for support through the E-Rate program. 

For example, should the Commission 

adopt minimum service standards? The 

Commission invites input on the level 

of service that is needed to support 

remote learning, based on the direct 

experiences of providing Wi-Fi hotspots 

to students, school staff, and library 

patrons during the pandemic. Should 

the Commission limit support to just the 

off-premises use of the recurring 

internet access services needed for 

remote learning (and not the Wi-Fi 

hotspot equipment)? The Commission 

expects this limitation could allow 

schools and libraries with existing WiFi hotspot lending programs to continue 

to lend or check-out a portable Wi-Fi 

hotspot device with a mobile broadband 

connection to students, school staff, or 

library patrons for off-premises access to 

the internet. If the Commission decides 

not to make Wi-Fi hotspot devices 

eligible, how should the Commission 

address Wi-Fi hotspot devices that are 

bundled with services? Are there 

benefits or disadvantages if the 

Commission limits E-Rate support to 

only services, and does not include WiFi hotspot devices as eligible for 

support? Should the Commission limit 

eligibility to the services associated with 

the Wi-Fi hotspots purchased using ECF 

program funds? Would this limitation 

help to ensure E-Rate support is 

directed to students, school staff, and 

library patrons who are expected to lose 

their connectivity when the ECF 

program sunsets? Are there other issues 

or concerns the Commission should 

consider when determining how to fund 

Wi-Fi hotspot devices and/or services? 

For example, how should leased or 

bundled equipment and service 

packages offered by providers be treated 

and should they be eligible for E-Rate 

support? The Commission seeks 

comment on these questions. 

2. Cost-Effective Purchases 

11. Next, the Commission seeks 

comment on how to ensure schools and 

libraries purchase the most costeffective service offering(s) when 

selecting Wi-Fi hotspots and services for 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons who lack access to broadband. 

Are the requirements to pay the nondiscounted share of costs and conduct 

competitive bidding sufficient 

incentives to prevent wasteful 

spending? The Commission also seeks 

comment on the anticipated costs of the 

Wi-Fi hotspots and services if provided 

on a program-wide basis. The 

Commission encourages schools, 

libraries, and other stakeholders to 

provide in their comments specific 

information about the devices and 

services purchased through the ECF 

program or with other funding, the 

costs, the device and service parameters, 

any steps they have taken to ensure the 

sufficiency of the service, and any steps 

they have taken to lower costs 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85160 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

associated with Wi-Fi hotspots and 

service. The anticipated costs should 

consider and describe any secondary 

components, such as additional hotspot 

features, different bandwidth 

capabilities, and any reasonable fees 

incurred with the purchase of Wi-Fi 

hotspots and services. 

12. The Commission next ask about 

cost-control mechanisms. Should the 

Commission adopt a cap on the amount 

of costs that will be considered costeffective for Wi-Fi hotspots and/or 

monthly services, and if so, should the 

Commission rely on ECF program data 

to establish a cap for a Wi-Fi hotspot 

provided to an individual user? For 

services, the Affordable Connectivity 

Program (ACP) provides discounts of up 

to $30 per month towards internet 

service (or up to $75 per month for 

eligible households on qualifying Tribal 

lands). Are these reasonable caps on 

what the Commission might consider 

cost-effective for monthly service? 

Should the Commission use different 

amounts for the monthly reimbursement 

of these services in the E-Rate program, 

and if so, what amounts should be used? 

If the Commission adopts caps on the 

amounts considered cost-effective for 

monthly services, should those caps be 

regularly updated, and if so, what 

mechanism should the Commission use 

to make those updates? What 

requirements should the Commission 

implement to ensure service providers 

in these underserved areas provide the 

most cost-effective services to eligible 

schools and libraries if a higher amount 

is allowed for support? The Commission 

seeks comment on these questions. 

13. Relatedly, under the 

Commission’s E-Rate rules, applicants 

are required to conduct fair and open 

competitive bidding when requesting 

funding for eligible services. The 

competitive bidding requirements are a 

cornerstone of the E-Rate program and 

are critical to ensuring that applicants 

obtain the most cost-effective offering 

available. However, the Commission 

recognizes that there may be challenges 

associated with conducting competitive 

bidding for off-premises wireless 

services that can be used from multiple 

locations. How can the Commission 

ensure applicants conduct fair and open 

competitive bidding for off-premises 

wireless services while also ensuring 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons can access those services from 

locations other than their school or 

library? For instance, in geographically 

large districts, a single service provider 

may not be able to provide service 

throughout the school’s or library’s 

service area. Should the Commission 

allow applicants to select multiple 

service providers for Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services based on the geographic area(s) 

of their students, school staff, and 

library patrons? How can the 

Commission ensure that applicants 

select the most cost-effective service 

offerings? Are there competitively-bid 

state or other master contracts available 

for schools and libraries to purchase WiFi hotspot devices and services for offpremises use? Are there any other issues 

that schools and libraries may encounter 

during their competitive bidding 

processes for Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services to be used off-premises that the 

Commission should also consider? 

B. Funding and Prioritization 

14. Based on its experience funding 

Wi-Fi hotspots and services through the 

ECF program, the Commission 

tentatively finds that taking this step 

toward addressing the educational 

needs of millions of students, school 

staff, and library patrons caught in the 

digital and educational divide is also 

technically feasible and economically 

reasonable, consistent with section 

254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications 

Act. The Commission estimates that 

approximately 4.5 million students, 

school staff, and library patrons 

received mobile broadband service and/ 

or hotspots through the ECF program for 

the 2021–2022 school year, with an 

average cost of approximately $294 per 

user per year. The Commission seeks 

comment on this estimate, and any data 

and numerical evidence that can be 

used to support or update its estimate. 

Given that the demand for E-Rate 

program funding has consistently fallen 

below the program’s funding cap in 

recent years, the Commission believes 

the cost of funding Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services for off-premises use could be 

accomplished within the E-Rate 

program’s existing budget, and the 

potential increase in program 

disbursements would result in a 

substantial benefit to students, school 

staff, and library patrons stuck on the 

wrong side of the digital and 

educational divide, and in the 

Homework Gap across the country. The 

Commission seeks comment on its 

tentative conclusion. 

15. Commenters are also invited to 

address whether the number of 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons that received mobile broadband 

service through Wi-Fi hotspots in the 

ECF program provides an accurate basis 

for estimating demand if the 

Commission permits mobile broadband 

service and Wi-Fi hotspots for offpremises use to be funded with E-Rate 

support, particularly given that not all 

E-Rate participants applied for the ECF 

program, and other federal or state 

funding may have also been used for 

this purpose during the pandemic. The 

Commission requests additional 

information on whether there are 

schools and libraries that did not apply 

for ECF support that would apply for ERate support for the off-premises use of 

Wi-Fi hotspots and services. In addition, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether the ECF program’s $294 

estimated average cost per user provides 

an accurate basis for estimating the 

potential cost to the E-Rate program of 

supporting Wi-Fi hotspots and mobile 

broadband service for off-premises use, 

provided the Commission reduces that 

amount by the average discounted share 

that will be paid by schools and 

libraries. Is this estimated cost too high, 

given the ECF program was an 

emergency program and there were not 

program-specific competitive bidding 

rules, unlike for the E-Rate program, 

which requires competitive bidding and 

for applicants to select the most costeffective service offering using prices of 

the eligible services as the primary 

factor? How should the Commission 

account for the average three-year 

lifespan of Wi-Fi hotspot devices and 

the fact that many users will be able to 

continue to use devices funded through 

ECF after the sunset of the program, as 

well as funded through the other state 

and federal programs? For example, 

how can the Commission prevent 

parties from replacing ECF-funded WiFi hotpots with new Wi-Fi hotpots 

funded through the E-Rate program 

before the ECF-funded equipment 

reaches its end-of-life (EOL)? Could the 

FCC manage the potential costs to the ERate program by establishing limits on 

the amount of support dedicated to the 

off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services? The Commission seeks 

comment on these questions. 

16. The Commission acknowledges 

that there are some circumstances where 

Wi-Fi hotspots and services may not 

meet the connectivity needs of all 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons caught in the Homework Gap. 

The Commission also acknowledges that 

some schools and libraries used ECF 

funding for other remote learning 

solutions, such as building their own 

fixed wireless networks, and may also 

seek to use E-Rate funding to continue 

providing connectivity to their students, 

school staff, or patrons after the ECF 

program sunsets. While the Commission 

recognizes that there may be other offpremises uses that may meet the 

definition of an educational purpose, 

these solutions also have the potential 

to be extremely costly to fund with the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85161 

very limited E-Rate support and could 

be duplicative of funding made 

available through other state and federal 

programs. The Commission seeks 

comment on these conclusions. The 

Commission believes that taking this 

initial, incremental step to fund Wi-Fi 

hotspots and services for off-premises 

use strikes the right balance and is 

consistent with its universal service 

goals. The Commission also believes its 

proposal can be accomplished without 

excessive cost to the E-Rate program or 

significant administrative delay. The 

Commission therefore proposes to limit 

the scope of the NPRM to the offpremises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services because the Commission is 

mindful of its obligation to be a prudent, 

responsible steward of the limited ERate funding and its statutory directive 

to establish rules only to the extent it is 

‘‘economically reasonable’’ to do so. The 

Commission invite comment on this 

proposal. Recognizing that there may be 

circumstances where there is either no 

commercially available mobile service 

or the existing service is insufficient to 

allow students, school staff, or library 

patrons to fully engage in remote 

learning, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should consider alternatives for offpremises services funded through the ERate program in such limited 

circumstances and what alternatives 

should be considered. For example, 

should the Commission permit schools 

and libraries to use existing E-Ratefunded networks to connect students, 

school staff, or library patrons offpremises in the narrow instances where 

commercially available mobile 

broadband is not a viable option (e.g., 

due to geographic challenges or cost)? 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

how the Commission should determine 

there is no commercially available 

service, or existing service is 

insufficient to support remote learning 

and how to ensure the alternative 

solutions are the most cost-effective way 

of providing service to students, school 

staff, and library patrons who otherwise 

are not able to fully engage in remote 

learning. 

1. Prioritization 

17. If the Commission makes 

students’, school staff members’, and 

library patrons’ off-premises use of WiFi hotspots devices and services 

eligible, what category of service should 

these devices and services be? Under 

the current Eligible Services List, 

wireless internet services are category 

one services and are eligible under 

limited circumstances. Should the 

Commission therefore considers Wi-Fi 

hotspots to be network equipment 

necessary to make category one wireless 

internet services functional? If the 

Commission determines that Wi-Fi 

hotspots are comparable to internal 

connections as the State of Colorado 

suggests, should these devices be 

considered category two services? 

18. Based on the Commission’s 

experience in the ECF program and 

other publicly available information, the 

Commission anticipates that its 

proposal to fund the off-premises use of 

Wi-Fi hotspots and services will result 

in an increase in E-Rate funding 

requests. In the event that E-Rate 

program demand exceeds its annual 

funding cap, the Commission seeks 

comment on how requests for the offpremises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services should be prioritized. Are there 

measures the Commission should 

consider to ensure that E-Rate funding 

remains available for the currentlyeligible category one and category two 

services that are needed by schools and 

libraries? Should these requests be 

prioritized after services and equipment 

needed to bring connectivity to and 

within schools and libraries (i.e., 

category one and category two services) 

are funded? Should the Commission 

prioritize requests for services 

associated with the Wi-Fi hotspots 

purchased using ECF program funds? 

Will funding the off-premises use of WiFi hotspot devices and services have 

any impact on other pending E-Raterelated eligibility requests, such as 

expanding basic firewall services to 

include advanced or next-generation 

firewall services? Are there other ways 

to limit the financial impact of 

supporting the off-premises use of WiFi hotspots and services? For example, 

should the Commission consider an 

overall budget for these new offpremises services? Should there be an 

annual funding cap for the amount of 

support that is available for the offpremises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services? If so, what should the funding 

cap be? Should it be indexed to 

inflation? Alternatively, would a perstudent limit, like the one used for 

category two funding budgets, help to 

ensure the limited E-Rate program 

support is distributed equitably to 

schools and libraries across the various 

discount rates? Should the Commission 

implement these changes on an interim 

basis and subsequently assess whether 

to implement a permanent rule change 

based on its interim experience? The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

proposals and questions. 

2. Unmet Need 

19. The Commission also recognizes 

that there are insufficient E-Rate funds 

to support Wi-Fi hotspots and services 

for every student, school staff member, 

and library patron across the nation. 

Therefore, how can the Commission 

prioritize support for students, school 

staff, and library patrons who do not 

have internet access at home? In the 

ECF program, the Commission limited 

support to students, school staff, and 

library patrons without internet access 

services sufficient to engage in remote 

learning. Through its experience in the 

ECF program, the Commission 

understands that schools and libraries 

have faced challenges in determining 

which parts of their population needed 

access to Wi-Fi hotspots and services for 

the upcoming funding year. The 

Commission therefore seeks comment 

on administratively feasible ways to 

ensure the E-Rate program prioritizes 

support for Wi-Fi hotspots and services 

for use by students, school staff, or 

patrons who would otherwise lack 

access to internet access services. 

20. The ECF program limited support 

for eligible equipment and services to 

students, school staff, or library patrons 

with unmet need, and, because it was an 

emergency COVID–19 relief program, 

schools and libraries were required to 

provide only their best estimate of 

unmet need during the application 

stage. However, because the E-Rate 

program is not an emergency program, 

there is time for schools and libraries to 

determine the actual number of 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons with unmet needs. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Commission should adopt more 

stringent unmet needs requirements for 

the E-Rate program than it adopted for 

the ECF program. For example, should 

the Commission require schools and 

libraries to conduct and submit as part 

of their funding requests a survey or 

other documentation that substantiates 

their student and school staff, or patron 

population who has current unmet 

needs? Would such a requirement raise 

any privacy concerns (e.g., insofar as 

such surveys would be intended to elicit 

information from potentially lowerincome children, families, and 

individuals)? If this requirement would 

create privacy risks for students, 

families, and patrons, how could the 

Commission mitigate those risks (e.g., 

via data minimization, anonymization, 

or deidentification)? For example, 

would it be possible for schools and 

libraries to conduct such surveys 

without collecting any personally 

identifiable information (PII) from 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85162 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

students, staff, or patrons, and what 

burdens would such a collection place 

on school and library resources? If 

schools and libraries would need to 

collect PII, should the Commission 

requires that all such information be 

removed from the survey results when 

submitted with funding requests? 

21. Are there other ways that the 

Commission can ensure it focuses and 

targets the limited E-Rate program 

support to only students, school staff, 

and library patrons who currently lack 

broadband access—and who cannot 

afford it—so that the E-Rate program 

does not support services for students, 

school staff, or library patrons who 

already have broadband connectivity at 

their homes? For example, should the 

Commission restricts the support of offpremises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services to students whose parent or 

guardian certifies that they lack 

broadband at home and who are eligible 

for the free or reduced-price lunch 

program (also known as the National 

School Lunch Program or NSLP)? Are 

there any other school nutrition 

programs that a student’s parent or 

guardian should be able to use to 

demonstrate eligibility under this 

approach, such as the School Breakfast 

Program? What burdens could 

conditioning support on NSLP 

participation impose on school 

administrators and/or students? If the 

Commission declines to use NSLP for 

determining eligibility, what other 

measures could be taken to ensure the 

limited E-Rate support is directed to the 

students with the greatest need? For 

school staff and library patrons, are 

there similar or alternative requirements 

that the Commission should consider to 

ensure that E-Rate support is used 

towards existing unmet needs and to 

prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the 

program? The Commission seeks 

comment on these questions and how to 

best target E-Rate funding to only 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons with the greatest need. 

22. The Commission further seeks 

comment on whether there are certain 

school populations, such as Head Start 

and pre-kindergarten students, for 

whom the risks may outweigh the 

benefits of providing E-Rate support for 

the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots 

and services. For example, studies show 

that children under the age of 5 should 

limit internet access to one hour or less 

per day and are harmed if exposed to 

longer periods of use. The Commission 

proposes that the Head Start program, 

which provides early learning and 

development for pre-school children 

from the ages of 3 to 5, and prekindergarten students should be 

determined to be ineligible to receive ERate support for off-premises use of WiFi hotspots and services. The 

Commission notes that Head Start and/ 

or pre-kindergarten education facilities 

serving this particular age group may be 

eligible for E-Rate funding for 

broadband connectivity to and within 

their facilities, if determined to be 

elementary schools under their 

applicable state laws. Further, parents 

and guardians of Head Start students 

may be eligible for home internet access 

services through ACP because Head 

Start is an income-based program and, 

to qualify, a family must be at or below 

the federal poverty level, or participate 

in a federal government assistance 

program. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal and other 

measures the Commission should take 

to ensure that the E-Rate program’s 

limited support is targeted to students, 

school staff, and library patrons with the 

greatest need, as there is insufficient 

funding to support the off-premises use 

of Wi-Fi hotspots and services for every 

student, school staff member, and 

library patron. 

C. Program Safeguards 

23. The Commission is mindful of its 

obligation to protect the Universal 

Service Fund (USF) and the USF 

programs from waste, fraud, and abuse, 

and take seriously its duty to be a 

careful steward of E-Rate program 

funds. The Commission is similarly 

committed to ensuring the integrity of 

the E-Rate program and identify below 

potential tools at its disposal to ensure 

that the E-Rate program’s funds are used 

for its intended purposes, i.e., to 

enhance and enable access to broadband 

services for educational opportunities 

for schools and libraries nationwide. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

what safeguards the Commission should 

consider imposing to protect the 

constrained E-Rate funds from waste, 

fraud, and abuse, and to prevent the 

imposition of unnecessary costs on the 

program. 

1. Educational Purpose 

24. The Commission first seeks 

comment on how to ensure that the offpremises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services is primarily for educational 

purposes, consistent with the 

Commission’s rules and section 

254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act. 

The COVID–19 pandemic demonstrated 

the educational benefits of providing 

critical broadband connections to 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons and highlighted their reliance 

on interactive and collaborative remote 

learning outside the physical school or 

library building. The Commission 

recognizes that the use of eligible 

services on school or library property 

typically occurs under the supervision 

of school or library staff; whereas, the 

off-premises use of these services 

presents new concerns about ensuring 

the proper use of the E-Rate-funded 

equipment and services that are not 

directly supervised by the recipient of 

the funding. In balancing these benefits 

and concerns, the Commission therefore 

seeks comment on what safeguards 

should be imposed to mitigate the risk 

of off-premises non-educational use of 

E-Rate-supported Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services. 

25. Currently, E-Rate participants are 

required to certify on program forms 

that supported services will be used 

primarily for educational purposes. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

requiring schools and libraries to certify 

on their forms that E-Rate support is 

being used primarily for educational 

purposes is sufficient to protect against 

improper use or if additional guardrails 

should be imposed to ensure that 

services are used ‘‘primarily for 

educational purposes.’’ For example, 

libraries that used ECF funding to 

connect their patrons through Wi-Fi 

hotspot lending programs are required 

to provide patrons with a copy of their 

eligible use policy and collect signed 

statements from patrons confirming that 

they would otherwise lack access to the 

equipment or services necessary to meet 

their educational needs. Should the 

Commission adopt a similar 

requirement in the E-Rate program and 

require schools and libraries to provide 

copies of their eligible use policies and 

collect signed documentation of user 

compliance from patrons, school staff 

members, or parents/guardians of 

students to ensure the E-Rate-funded 

Wi-Fi hotspots and services are used 

solely by the intended recipient and 

serve an educational purpose? How can 

the Commission ensure that the offpremises Wi-Fi hotspots and services 

are being used as intended by the 

individual student, school staff member, 

or library patron for educational 

purposes, and E-Rate funding is not 

being used to provide broadband 

connectivity for the whole family, for 

which there are more appropriate 

funding sources available, like the ACP? 

Should the Commission require schools 

and libraries, as a condition of receiving 

E-Rate support for off-premises use, to 

include certain minimum requirements 

in their eligible use policies, or limit the 

duration of time a student, school staff 

member, or library patron can use the 

hotspot at home? Should, for example, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85163 

schools and libraries be required to 

restrict access to the off-premises use of 

Wi-Fi hotspots and services to students, 

school staff, and patrons with 

appropriate credentials? What would 

constitute appropriate credentials? 

Should there be an annual verification 

process to establish continuing need 

and eligible use for students and school 

staff before the start of each school year? 

Should the documentation signed by 

users include a notice of potential 

consequences if a Wi-Fi hotspot is used 

improperly, including the return of the 

device and revocation of the associated 

service? Are there other actions that the 

Commission could take to help ensure 

the appropriate use of the E-Rate-funded 

Wi-Fi hotspots and services? The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

questions. 

26. If the Commission extends 

support to the off-premises use of Wi-Fi 

hotspots and services, the Commission 

expects the support would be subject to 

the audits and reviews currently 

utilized in the E-Rate program (e.g., 

Beneficiary and Contributor Audit 

Program (BCAP) audits, Payment 

Quality Assurance (PQA) audits, and 

Payment Integrity Assurance (PIA) 

reviews and Selective Reviews (SR) of 

the FCC Form 471). Are the current ERate audit and application/invoice 

review mechanisms sufficient to ensure 

that off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services are actively being used by 

eligible users primarily for educational 

purposes? Should the Commission 

increase the number and frequency of 

random or targeted audits in the first 

few years of support as a means of 

detecting and preventing improper 

payments for Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services that are not needed, are not 

being used, are being used to provide 

home broadband connectivity to an 

entire family, or are not being used 

primarily for an educational purpose? 

Are there other issues, such as privacy 

concerns, or changes the Commission 

should consider for audits and reviews 

related to funding requests and 

disbursements for off-premises use of 

Wi-Fi hotspots and services? For 

example, because it is presumed to 

serve an educational purpose when the 

services are used on school or library 

property, how should the Commission 

verify that the off-premises use of ERate-funded Wi-Fi hotspots and services 

are being used for educational 

purposes? Are there mechanisms or 

tools available that would allow for 

verifying compliance with E-Rate rules 

regarding the off-premises use of 

supported Wi-Fi hotspots and services 

that would not require review of users’ 

online activities, browsing history, etc.? 

If not, should users receive advance 

notice that their use of an E-Ratesupported Wi-Fi hotspot and service is 

subject to audit, which may include 

review of their online activities and 

browsing history to verify compliance 

with the Commission’s rules? The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

questions. 

27. The Commission also seeks 

comment on what other requirements 

should be imposed to ensure schools 

and libraries are not requesting funding 

for more Wi-Fi hotspots and services 

than are necessary to meet the needs of 

only students, school staff, and library 

patrons who lack access to broadband 

and are used for educational purposes. 

For instance, schools and libraries may 

allow the community to use E-Ratefunded services from on-premises 

locations during non-operating hours, 

subject to certain conditions to ensure 

students always have the first priority to 

use the supported services and to 

protect against the waste, fraud, and 

abuse of the funds. Are there similar 

conditions that the Commission should 

impose on the off-premises use of WiFi hotspots and services to ensure 

applicants are not requesting excess 

services for non-educational purposes 

like video games or non-educational 

streaming services, and that students, 

school staff, and library patrons are 

receiving first priority in the use of 

school or library resources? Are there 

incidental uses that should be 

permissible, like telehealth 

appointments or filling out government 

forms, that would not result in a greater 

demand on E-Rate funding? The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

questions and invite input on what 

steps schools and libraries have taken to 

ensure the off-premises use of ECFfunded Wi-Fi hotspots and services 

were used only by the intended 

individual(s) and for educational 

purposes. 

2. Usage 

28. If the Commission makes offpremises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services eligible, how can the 

Commission prevent the warehousing of 

Wi-Fi hotspots and reimbursement for 

unused equipment and/or services? Are 

there ways to prevent the purchase of 

‘‘back-up’’ Wi-Fi hotspots, e.g., hotspots 

purchased in anticipation of loss, 

breakage, or additional unmet need? 

Should the Commission adopt 

numerical criteria to assess usage: e.g., 

should usage below a weekly, monthly, 

or quarterly threshold of X hours be 

treated as ‘‘non-usage’’? Should the 

Commission require participants to 

provide evidence of usage and/or 

strengthen the certification 

requirements surrounding non-usage? 

For example, should the Commission 

require the submission of data usage 

reports (i.e., reports on the amount of 

data used, not the substance of the 

usage) with requests for reimbursement 

to demonstrate the Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services were used by students, school 

staff, and library patrons as intended for 

the time period being invoiced to the ERate program? Should there be different 

usage requirements applicable to 

schools and libraries? How does the 

Commission avoid having the E-Rate 

program pay for service to Wi-Fi 

hotspots during the summer, when 

students may not be using the devices? 

For example, should E-Rate support for 

schools be limited to only nine months 

per school year to prevent the E-Rate 

program from covering the costs of 

unused devices and/or services during 

the summer? Should the certifications 

regarding non-usage in the ECF program 

be strengthened for the E-Rate program? 

How should the certifications be 

strengthened, and how could a school, 

library, or service provider demonstrate 

compliance with the certification 

requirements? The Commission seeks 

comment on these questions. 

29. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how schools, libraries, and 

service providers should address nonusage issues. If the monthly usage report 

indicates that certain hotspot devices 

are not being used by the student, 

school staff member, or library patron, 

should the school or library be required 

to terminate the service to that device? 

Should the service provider be 

responsible for notifying the school or 

library which devices had no usage on 

a monthly basis and be required to 

terminate the service? Should there be 

a cure or notification period to allow the 

student, school staff member, or library 

patron to restart use of the services or 

should the services be terminated after 

there is a month of no usage? The 

Commission seeks comment on what 

requirements should be implemented to 

ensure usage of the devices and services 

and what actions the school, library, or 

service provider should be required to 

take to address any non-usage issues 

related to their students, school staff, or 

library patrons. 

30. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how the Administrator 

should handle non-usage issues related 

to off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services. If a school or library cannot 

demonstrate the Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services were used by the intended 

individual, should their request for 

reimbursement be denied, and the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85164 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Administrator be directed to reduce the 

committed funding amount by the same 

amount to prevent this funding from 

being disbursed in the future? Should 

schools and libraries be required to 

notify the Administrator if their service 

provider submits invoices for Wi-Fi 

hotspots or services that the school or 

library knows are not being used by its 

students, school staff, or library patrons, 

because, for example, the device has not 

been distributed yet? Should the 

Administrator be directed to seek 

recovery from a service provider that 

invoices the program for Wi-Fi hotspots 

and services that were not in use during 

the reimbursement period? Should the 

Commission also prohibit service 

providers from invoicing applicants for 

periods of non-usage? If there is 

evidence of non-usage of the offpremises Wi-Fi hotspots and/or 

services, should schools and libraries be 

required to file an FCC Form 500, or 

other post-commitment request, to 

reflect the actual periods of time that the 

Wi-Fi hotspots and services were in use 

by their students, school staff, or library 

patrons? Should E-Rate participants that 

improperly received E-Rate support for 

unused Wi-Fi hotspots and/or services 

not be eligible to request E-Rate support 

for off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services in future funding years? Or 

should the school or library be required 

to reduce their funding requests by the 

amount of funding related to the unused 

Wi-Fi hotspots and services in future 

funding years? The Commission seeks 

comment on these questions and ways 

to ensure the off-premises Wi-Fi 

hotspots and services are actually being 

used for their intended purpose of 

providing broadband connectivity to 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons who lack access and are used 

for educational purposes. 

3. Duplicative Funding 

31. The Commission seeks comment 

on what safeguards are necessary to 

prevent duplicative funding for the 

same off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and/or 

services across the federal universal 

service programs and other funding 

programs, including federal, state, 

Tribal, or local programs. For example, 

the ACP provides discounts to help lowincome households pay for the home 

broadband service and connected 

devices needed for critical activities like 

work and school. However, a household 

may justifiably receive support from 

multiple universal service programs at 

the same time: for instance, a household 

may receive a Lifeline-supported 

discount on mobile broadband and 

voice service for a cellular phone that a 

parent takes with them to work, while 

separately receiving support for a Wi-Fi 

hotspot to help a child in that same 

household complete their homework on 

a school-issued laptop. How can the 

Commission ensure that funding sought 

for internet access services through the 

E-Rate program will not be duplicative 

of funding received through other 

programs, like the ACP, for home 

internet access, while recognizing that a 

household may permissibly benefit from 

multiple federal universal service 

programs simultaneously? If schools 

and libraries already provide offpremises access for their students, 

school staff, and patrons through ECF or 

other sources of funding, should those 

schools and libraries be prohibited from 

using E-Rate support for that same 

purpose? For example, how does the 

Commission ensure that schools and 

libraries that have purchased Wi-Fi 

hotspots with ECF support do not 

purchase new hotspots with E-Rate 

support prior to the end of the useful 

life of the ECF-funded hotspots? To help 

us assess this issue, the Commission 

asks commenters to identify any ECF 

support or other sources of funding 

currently being used by schools or 

libraries to subsidize off-premises access 

for students, school staff, and library 

patrons that would eliminate or reduce 

the need for E-Rate-supported Wi-Fi 

hotspots. Would a certification by the 

school or library be sufficient to indicate 

that E-Rate support is only being sought 

for eligible students, school staff, or 

library patrons and the school or library 

does not already have access to Wi-Fi 

hotspots purchased with ECF support or 

other sources of funding? The 

Commission seeks comment on how to 

prevent duplicative funding between ERate, ECF, and other funding programs, 

including federal, state, Tribal, or local 

programs. 

4. Recordkeeping 

32. The Commission’s rules currently 

requires schools and libraries to retain 

all documentation related to the 

application, receipt, and delivery of 

eligible services received through the ERate program for at least ten years after 

the last date of the delivery of services. 

The Commission proposes to apply 

existing E-Rate recordkeeping 

requirements to funding provided for 

the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots 

and services. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal and whether 

additional recordkeeping requirements 

should be imposed for these purposes. 

For example, while both the E-Rate and 

ECF rules require applicants to maintain 

inventories of equipment purchased 

with the programs’ support, ECF rules 

require applicants to maintain specific 

information in their equipment and 

service inventories for each device or 

service purchased with ECF support and 

provided to an individual student, 

school staff member, or library patron. 

For each hotspot purchased with ECF 

support, a school or library must 

maintain the device make/model, the 

device serial number, the name of the 

person to whom the device was 

provided, and the dates the device was 

loaned out and returned to the school or 

library. Each ECF-funded service 

inventory must include the type of 

service provided, the broadband plan 

details (i.e., upload and download 

speeds and the monthly data cap), and 

the name of the person to whom the 

service was provided. Should the 

Commission adopts these inventory 

requirements in the E-Rate program for 

the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots 

and services? For Wi-Fi hotspot lending 

programs, should the Commission 

consider library-specific inventory 

rules? 

33. The Commission seeks comment 

on any other issues related to 

maintaining documentation to 

demonstrate compliance with E-Rate 

rules and certifications. Related to the 

Commission’s unmet need inquiries, 

should applicants be required to 

maintain records of students’, school 

staff members’, or library patrons’ 

unmet needs, and if so, what types of 

records should be required (e.g., 

surveys)? If the Commission requires 

schools and libraries to retain new 

records regarding unmet needs 

containing PII, how can the Commission 

address any privacy risks to students, 

families, school staff, and patrons? 

Related to its non-usage requirements 

inquiries, the Commission notes that 

service providers would be required to 

retain and produce monthly usage 

reports for off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots 

and services funded through the E-Rate 

program under its current rules. Should 

applicants be required to request and 

retain monthly usage reports from their 

service providers as well? Are there 

other recordkeeping requirements for 

the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots 

and services that should be considered 

by the Commission? 

D. Legal Authority and Other 

Outstanding Issues 

34. Several stakeholders have argued 

that the Commission should, and has 

the authority to, clarify that the E-Rate 

program may support off-premises 

solutions like Wi-Fi hotspots for 

extending connectivity to students’, 

school staff members’, and patrons’ 

homes. For example, the Schools, 

Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85165 

Coalition argued that section 

254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act 

does not prohibit the provision of E-Rate 

support for off-premises services; rather, 

it simply requires a demonstration by ERate participants that the off-premises 

use of eligible equipment and services 

primarily serves an educational 

purpose. Additionally, Apple posited 

that the Commission should determine 

that equipment and services that 

support remote learning, like Wi-Fi 

hotspots, are eligible for E-Rate support 

because they ‘‘enhance . . . access to 

advanced telecommunications and 

information services’’ for schools and 

libraries under section 254(h)(2)(A) of 

the Communications Act. The 

Commission tentatively concludes, 

consistent with the recent Wi-Fi on 

School Buses Declaratory Ruling and 

the Commission’s past determinations 

regarding the off-campus use of certain 

E-Rate services, that the Commission 

has authority under section 254 of the 

Communications Act to permit eligible 

schools and libraries to receive E-Rate 

support for Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless 

internet services that may be used offpremises. The Commission seeks 

comment on its tentative conclusion 

and the scope of the Commission’s 

relevant legal authority, including the 

applicability of CIPA requirements. 

35. First, the Commission tentatively 

concludes that such Wi-Fi hotspot and 

wireless internet services that may be 

used off-premises and are targeted for 

use by students and educators constitute 

services that are ‘‘provide[d] . . . to 

elementary schools, secondary schools, 

and libraries,’’ and thus may be 

supported pursuant to section 

254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act 

when used ‘‘for educational purposes.’’ 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

tentative conclusion, including that the 

reference to ‘‘elementary schools, 

secondary schools, and libraries’’ does 

not constrain us from supporting offpremises use of such services for 

educational purposes. The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether and 

under what circumstances the offpremises use of wireless services, and 

the Wi-Fi hotspots needed to deliver 

such services, by students, school staff, 

and library patrons at locations other 

than at a school or library constitutes an 

educational purpose under section 

254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act. 

Taking into consideration the lack of a 

reliable broadband connection at some 

students’, school staff members’, and 

library patrons’ homes, and the 

increasing need for connectivity in 

today’s technology-based educational 

environment that extends learning 

beyond a school or library building (e.g., 

for virtual classes, electronic research 

projects, homework assignments, virtual 

library resources, and job or government 

assistance applications), as well as its 

experience connecting students, school 

staff, and library patrons using ECFfunded Wi-Fi hotspots and services, the 

Commission specifically proposes that 

the off-premises use of mobile wireless 

services and the Wi-Fi hotspots needed 

to deliver such connectivity is integral, 

immediate, and proximate to the 

education of students, or in the case of 

libraries, integral, immediate, and 

proximate to the provision of library 

services. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal and invite 

commenters to provide specific 

examples of how Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services used off-premises serve an 

educational purpose. As discussed in 

greater detail above, the Commission 

also seeks comment on the necessary 

safeguards to ensure that this offpremises use is primarily for 

educational purposes, consistent with 

its rules and section 254(h)(1)(B) of the 

Communications Act. 

36. Next, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether supporting Wi-Fi 

hotspots and services is consistent with 

the Commission’s precedent permitting 

certain off-premises uses of other ERate-funded services. Although prior 

off-premises uses permitted by the 

Commission were limited to 

telecommunications services, the 

Commission has expressly rejected the 

assertion that the support provided 

under section 254(h) of the 

Communications Act is limited to 

telecommunications services. 

Specifically, in the First Universal 

Service Order, 62 FR 32862, June 17, 

1997, the Commission concluded that 

section 254(h)(1)(B) through section 

254(c)(3) of the Communications Act 

authorizes universal service support for 

telecommunications services and 

additional services such as information 

services. Furthermore, in the Wi-Fi on 

School Buses Declaratory Ruling, the 

Commission concluded that the 

provision of support for Wi-Fi on school 

buses fit squarely within its authority 

under section 254(h)(1)(B) to designate 

‘‘ ‘services that are within the definition 

of universal service under subsection 

(c)(3),’ which itself authorizes the 

Commission to designate nontelecommunications services for support 

under E-Rate.’’ To the extent section 

254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act 

encompasses additional services, such 

as information services, does the 

Commission have a basis to authorize 

support under that subsection for 

wireless Internet access services needed 

for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi 

hotspots? 

37. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how the Commission 

should reconcile the authority provided 

under section 254(h)(1)(B) of the 

Communications Act to support certain 

‘‘services’’ with the fact that Wi-Fi 

hotspots are physical devices needed to 

provide those services. In the First 

Universal Service Order, for example, 

the Commission specifically concluded 

that ‘‘it can include ‘the information 

services’ e.g., protocol conversion and 

information storage, that are needed to 

access the Internet, as well as internal 

connections, as ‘additional services’ that 

section 254(h)(1)(B), through section 

254(c)(3), authorizes us to support.’’ 

Consistent with that precedent, the 

Commission tentatively concludes that 

the Commission has authority under 

section 254(h)(1)(B) through section 

254(c)(3) of the Communications Act to 

support the Wi-Fi hotspot devices that 

are needed for the off-premises use of 

the broadband services. The 

Commission invites comment on its 

tentative conclusion. 

38. Further, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that providing ERate support for the off-premises use of 

Wi-Fi hotspots and services 

‘‘enhance[s], to the extent technically 

feasible and economically reasonable, 

access to advanced telecommunications 

and information services for all public 

and nonprofit elementary and secondary 

school classrooms . . . and libraries’’ 

consistent with section 254(h)(2)(A) of 

the Communications Act. Funding the 

off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and 

services will help provide the 

broadband connectivity necessary to 

support the ability of schools and 

libraries to facilitate remote learning for 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons who lack access when they are 

away from school or library premises 

and will allow schools and libraries to 

provide digital educational resources at 

anytime from anywhere. Therefore, the 

Commission believes the action 

proposed today will enhance schools’ 

and libraries’ access to advanced 

telecommunications and information 

services under section 254(h)(2)(A) of 

the Communications Act. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

interpretation. 

39. The Commission also tentatively 

concludes that this proposal is 

consistent with the Commission’s 

exercise of its authority under section 

254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act 

to establish the Connected Care Pilot 

Program and in its recent Declaratory 

Ruling clarifying that use of Wi-Fi 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85166 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

services on school buses is an 

educational purpose and, therefore, can 

be eligible for E-Rate support. In 

establishing the Connected Care Pilot 

Program, the Commission found that 

providing support for patients’ home 

broadband connections expanded health 

care providers’ digital footprints for 

purposes of providing connected care 

services and allowed health care 

providers to serve more patients through 

the pilot program, thus enhancing 

eligible health care providers’ access to 

advanced telecommunications and 

information services. Similarly, in the 

recent Wi-Fi on School Buses 

Declaratory Ruling, the Commission 

found that ‘‘the use of Wi-Fi on school 

buses to aid the many students who lack 

robust internet access at home similarly 

enhances eligible schools’ and libraries’ 

access to advanced telecommunications 

and information services.’’ Would 

funding Wi-Fi hotspots and services to 

provide off-premises connectivity to 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons who lack access similarly 

enhance eligible schools’ and libraries’ 

access to advanced telecommunications 

and information services? The 

Commission seeks comment on its 

tentative conclusion. 

40. Off-Premises Limitations. In 

tentatively concluding that providing ERate support for off-premises use of WiFi hotspots and services is consistent 

with section 254(h)(2)(A) of the 

Communications Act, the Commission 

also seeks comment on how today’s 

modern educational environment has 

evolved for the purposes of enhancing 

affordable access to 21st Century 

broadband services capable of 

supporting today’s digital learning. The 

Commission has long recognized the 

evolving nature of educational 

technology, noting in the 2010 National 

Broadband Plan that ‘‘[o]nline 

educational systems are rapidly taking 

learning outside the classroom, creating 

a potential situation where students 

with access to broadband at home will 

have an even greater advantage over 

those students who can only access 

these resources at their public schools 

and libraries.’’ Over a decade later, and 

in the wake of nationwide school and 

library shutdowns, the need for 

connectivity for remote learning has 

become only more pronounced. There is 

little doubt that advances in technology 

have enabled students to continue to 

learn well after the school bell rings, 

including from their homes or other 

locations like, for example, youth 

centers. Today’s learning settings have 

evolved, and learning now occurs 

outside of the school or library building, 

increasing the need to have broadband 

connections for educational success. As 

such, the Commission seeks comment 

on its tentative conclusion that the 

reference in section 254(h)(2)(A) of the 

Communications Act to ‘‘elementary 

and secondary school classrooms . . . 

and libraries’’ extends to student, school 

staff, and library patron homes, given 

that today’s educational environment 

clearly extends outside of the physical 

school or library building. Does the 

modern student, school staff member, or 

library patron require internet access 

outside of school or library premises to 

achieve their educational goals? Is there 

data showing the extent to which 

certain educational activities take place 

in both the physical on-premises 

classroom and other off-premises 

locations? What about the extent to 

which students are required to do 

homework or engage in remote learning 

beyond school or library premises? The 

Commission invites commenters to 

share their experiences with the 

increasingly virtual nature of the 

modern educational environment and 

how evolving technologies have 

changed education. 

41. As noted, Congress did not define 

‘‘classrooms’’ for the purposes of section 

254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications 

Act. In the First Universal Service 

Order, the Commission concluded that 

the statutory reference to ‘‘classrooms’’ 

demonstrated that Congress intended to 

fund service to each individual 

classroom but did not define the term. 

More recently, the Commission 

determined that ‘‘in today’s world, 

teaching and learning often occur 

outside of brick and mortar school 

buildings and thus ‘classroom’ may be 

interpreted more broadly,’’ which may 

include, for example, school buses. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Commission should adopt a 

definition of ‘‘classrooms’’ for the 

purposes of the E-Rate program and 

what would be an appropriate definition 

to adequately cover the modern learning 

environment. Do homes and other offpremises locations (i.e., community 

centers, after-school centers, etc.) 

function as ‘‘virtual classrooms’’ within 

the meaning of ‘‘classrooms’’ as used in 

section 254(h)(2)(A) of the 

Communications Act, particularly after 

the COVID–19 pandemic? Furthermore, 

in establishing universal service support 

for schools and libraries, Congress 

explained that the intent of the support 

authorized under subsection (h)(2) is to 

‘‘enhance the availability of advanced 

telecommunications and information 

services to public institutional 

telecommunications users’’ and to 

ensure ‘‘Americans everywhere’’ have 

access ‘‘via schools and libraries.’’ The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

interpreting ‘‘classroom’’ to mean an inperson, on-premises setting would bar 

any intended Americans from benefiting 

from supported advanced 

telecommunications and information 

services. Alternatively, would a broader 

interpretation of ‘‘classrooms’’ to 

include locations other than the school 

or library and that focuses on the 

intended beneficiaries’ (i.e., ‘‘Americans 

everywhere’’) ability to access 

educational services, rather than the 

exact location of the services, be 

consistent with Congress’s intent? 

Relatedly, if the Commission adopts a 

broader interpretation of ‘‘classrooms’’, 

is there a definition that strikes a 

balance between ensuring access to 

educational services in this evolving 

learning environment while also 

establishing boundaries to ensure that 

the off-premises use of E-Rate-supported 

services remains the exception to the 

general presumption that activities that 

occur on library or school property 

serve an educational purpose? The 

Commission emphasizes that any 

determination of support for offpremises use of E-Rate-supported 

services will still be subject to the 

relevant statutory requirements 

discussed herein, including that the 

Commission first finds that the offpremises provision of such services 

serves an educational purpose pursuant 

to section 254(h)(1)(B), and enhances, to 

the extent technically feasible and 

economically reasonable, access to 

advanced telecommunications and 

information services under section 

254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications 

Act. The Commission seeks comment on 

whether these limitations are sufficient 

to ensure that E-Rate funding is being 

used for its intended purposes. 

42. The Children’s Internet Protection 

Act (CIPA). The Commission seeks 

comment on the applicability of the 

Children’s Internet Protection Act 

(CIPA) when connecting to internet 

made available by E-Rate-funded Wi-Fi 

hotspots and services. Congress enacted 

CIPA to protect children from exposure 

to harmful material while accessing the 

internet from a school or library. In 

enacting CIPA, Congress was 

particularly concerned with protecting 

children from exposure to material that 

was obscene, child pornography, or 

otherwise inappropriate for minors (i.e., 

harmful content). CIPA prohibits certain 

schools and libraries from receiving 

funding under section 254(h)(1)(B) of 

the Communications Act for internet 

access, internet service, or internal 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85167 

connections, unless they comply with 

specific internet safety requirements. 

Specifically, CIPA applies to schools 

and libraries ‘‘having computers with 

internet access,’’ and requires each such 

school or library to certify that it is 

enforcing a policy of internet safety that 

includes the operation of a technology 

protection measure ‘‘with respect to any 

of its computers with internet access.’’ 

Schools, but not libraries, must also 

monitor the online activities of minors 

and provide education about 

appropriate online behavior, including 

warnings against cyberbullying. The 

Commission tentatively concludes that 

the requirements of CIPA would apply 

to school- or library-owned computers 

being used off-premises if the school or 

library receives internet service, internet 

access, or network connection services 

or related equipment (including Wi-Fi 

hotspots) funded through the E-Rate 

program, and seek comment on this 

conclusion. 

43. In the ECF program, the 

Commission found that the purchase of 

hotspots would qualify as the purchase 

of network equipment for internet 

access, internet service, or internal 

connections, and would trigger CIPA 

compliance for the purchasing school or 

library only if used with any school- or 

library-owned computers. Similarly, 

other ECF-funded recurring internet 

access or internet services (if any) used 

off-premises triggers CIPA compliance if 

used with any school- or library-owned 

computer. On the other hand, the 

Commission determined for the ECF 

program that CIPA does not apply to the 

use of any third-party-owned device, 

even if that device is connecting to a 

school’s or library’s ECF-funded hotspot 

or other ECF-funded internet access or 

internet service. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether this is the 

appropriate interpretation of CIPA with 

regard to E-Rate-funded Wi-Fi hotspots 

and services used off-premises as 

discussed further below. 

44. At the time of CIPA’s enactment, 

schools and libraries primarily owned 

one or two stationary computer 

terminals that were used solely onpremises. Today, it is commonplace for 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons to carry internet-enabled 

devices onto school or library premises 

and for schools and libraries to allow 

third-party-owned devices access to 

their internet and broadband networks. 

In view of the changes in technology 

and the wider range of internet-enabled 

devices in circulation today, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

its current interpretation of CIPA’s 

applicability to computers owned by 

schools or libraries that receive E-Ratefunded internet service, internet access, 

or internal connections achieves CIPA’s 

intended purpose of protecting minors 

from exposure to harmful content while 

accessing internet services provided by 

a school or library. Are students or 

library patrons able to access content 

that is obscene, child pornography, or 

harmful to minors through E-Ratefunded internet or internal connections 

when they use their own (i.e., thirdparty) computers or devices? What steps 

can the Commission take to ensure that 

E-Rate funding is not being used to 

facilitate minors’ access to harmful 

content, including when using thirdparty-owned devices to connect to ERate-funded internet access, internet 

service, or internal connections? The 

Commission also understands that many 

mobile broadband service providers 

include network-level filtering in their 

service offerings and that many schools 

and libraries already deploy networklevel technology protection measures. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it can and should require or 

encourage filtering and other technology 

protection measures to be implemented 

at the network-level to ensure that 

minors are not accessing harmful 

content through E-Rate-funded internet 

access, internet service, or internal 

connections. The Commission invites 

input from commenters on their 

experiences implementing and using 

network-level protections to protect 

minors from accessing harmful content. 

45. The Commission also invites 

comment on the scope of the 

Commission’s authority to impose 

requirements on third-party-owned 

devices pursuant to CIPA. For example, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether the requirement in section 

254(h)(5)(B)(i) of the Communications 

Act that requires schools to certify that 

their internet safety policy ‘‘includes 

monitoring the online activities of 

minors’’ could be construed to extend to 

third-party-owned devices, 

notwithstanding other language in CIPA 

that suggests that its applicability is 

limited to school- or library-owned 

computers. Should monitoring the 

online activities of minors requirement 

apply to third-party-owned devices that 

use or access E-Rate-funded internet 

access, internet service, or internal 

connections? Is that interpretation 

consistent with Congress’s intent ‘‘to 

protect America’s children from 

exposure to obscene material, child 

pornography, or other material deemed 

inappropriate for minors while 

accessing the internet from a school or 

library receiving Federal Universal 

Service assistance for provisions of 

internet access, internet service, or 

internal connection’’? The Commission 

seeks information about current 

practices that would assist the 

Commission in formulating policies that 

reflect the importance of CIPA 

protections in the context of more 

modern uses of the internet services 

supported by E-Rate. 

46. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how CIPA’s requirements 

are being met remotely and whether the 

Commission’s existing CIPA-related 

rules adequately cover off-premises use. 

What measures are ECF recipients 

taking to comply with CIPA when 

providing ECF-funded hotspots for use 

on school- or library-owned computers? 

How are libraries balancing CIPA 

requirements and the needs of library 

patrons who rely on E-Rate-funded 

internet access or internal connections 

for remote learning and other E-Rate 

approved uses (e.g., job searching)? The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

questions and whether there may be 

other circumstances it has not 

considered related to the application of 

CIPA to the proposals in the NPRM. 

47. Finally, the Commission 

acknowledges there are privacy 

concerns related to certain CIPA 

requirements, particularly as it relates to 

library patrons’ data that is often subject 

to various federal and/or state privacy 

laws. The Commission seeks comment 

on these privacy-related issues and 

encourage commenters to be specific 

about how CIPA can be applied to 

ensure minors who are using E-Ratefunded Wi-Fi hotspots and services are 

protected from harmful online content, 

as intended by Congress. The 

Commission also seeks comment on any 

privacy-related implications if networklevel filtering or other technology 

protection measures are required for 

third-party-owned devices that access ERate funded internet or internal 

connections. 

E. Promoting Digital Equity and 

Inclusion 

48. The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to advance digital 

equity for all, including people of color, 

persons with disabilities, persons who 

live in rural or Tribal areas, and others 

who are or have been historically 

underserved, marginalized, or adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality, invites comment on any 

equity-related considerations and 

benefits (if any) that may be associated 

with the proposals and issues discussed 

herein. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on how its proposals 

may promote or inhibit advances in 

diversity, equity, inclusion, and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85168 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

accessibility, as well the scope of the 

Commission’s relevant legal authority. 

III. Procedural Matters 

49. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the 

Commission has prepared this Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in the Addressing the 

Homework Gap through the E-Rate 

Program, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public 

comments are requested on this IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments in the 

NPRM. The Commission will send a 

copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

50. The Commission’s E-Rate program 

provides support to schools and 

libraries, allowing them to obtain 

affordable, high-speed broadband 

services and internal connections, 

which enables them to connect students 

and library patrons to critical nextgeneration learning opportunities and 

services. The primary objectives of the 

NPRM are to address the remote 

learning needs of today’s students, 

school staff, and library patrons and to 

help close the country’s digital and 

educational divide (sometimes referred 

to as the Homework Gap), particularly 

once ECF program funding for offpremises broadband connectivity ends 

on June 30, 2024. To achieve these 

objectives, the NPRM proposes to make 

the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots 

and services by students, school staff, 

and library patrons who would 

otherwise be unable to engage in remote 

learning eligible for E-Rate support. 

51. The Commission seeks comments 

on its proposal to address the 

Homework Gap through the E-Rate 

program. Based on the Commission’s 

experience gained through the ECF 

program, its prior record, and other data 

sources, the Commission believes that 

there are significant benefits and need 

for the proposed rules in continuing to 

fund the off-premises use of Wi-Fi 

hotspots and services for students, 

school staff, and library patrons who 

would otherwise be unable to fully 

engage in remote learning. The NPRM 

requests comments on multiple ways to 

implement funding for the off-premises 

use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services 

within the existing E-Rate program 

processes, including eligibility limits 

and how to prioritize requests for offpremises Wi-Fi hotspots and services to 

help balance service needs with limited 

E-Rate funding. It also seeks comments 

on how to ensure cost-effective 

purchases and the potential challenges 

associated with conducting competitive 

bidding for off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots 

and services. Additionally, the NPRM 

seeks comments on what actions are 

necessary to safeguard these critical 

funds from potential waste, fraud, or 

abuse, for example, how to ensure the 

off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and services 

are being used by the intended recipient 

and serve an educational purpose. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

modifying the recordkeeping 

requirements to require applicants to 

maintain equipment and service 

inventories for off-premises Wi-Fi 

hotspots and services purchased with ERate support. Furthermore, the NPRM 

seeks comments on how to protect 

minor online users from harmful 

content. 

52. The proposed action is authorized 

pursuant to sections 1 through 4, 201– 

202, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 

201–202, 254, 303(r), and 403. 

53. 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. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. 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 SBA. 

54. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. The Commission’s actions, 

over time, may affect small entities that 

are not easily categorized at present. 

The Commission therefore describes, at 

the outset, three broad groups of small 

entities that could be directly affected 

herein. First, while there are industry 

specific size standards for small 

businesses that are used in the 

regulatory flexibility analysis, according 

to data from the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) Office of 

Advocacy, in general a small business is 

an independent business having fewer 

than 500 employees. These types of 

small businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States, which 

translates to 33.2 million businesses. 

55. Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ The Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of 

$50,000 or less to delineate its annual 

electronic filing requirements for small 

exempt organizations. Nationwide, for 

tax year 2020, there were approximately 

447,689 small exempt organizations in 

the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 

or less according to the registration and 

tax data for exempt organizations 

available from the IRS. 

56. Finally, the small entity described 

as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ 

is defined generally as ‘‘governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts, with a population of less than 

fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau 

data from the 2017 Census of 

Governments indicate there were 90,075 

local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number, there were 36,931 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal, and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations of less than 

50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 

U.S. Census of Governments data, the 

Commission estimates that at least 

48,971 entities fall into the category of 

‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

57. Small entities potentially affected 

by the rules herein include Schools, 

Libraries, Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers, All Other 

Telecommunications, Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite), Wireless Telephony, Wired 

Broadband internet Access Service 

Providers (Wired ISPs), Wireless 

Broadband internet Access Service 

Providers (Wireless ISPs or WISPs), 

internet Service Providers (NonBroadband), Vendors of Infrastructure 

Development or Network Buildout, 

Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing, 

and Radio and Television Broadcasting 

and Wireless Communications 

Equipment Manufacturing. 

58. The potential rule changes 

discussed in the NPRM if adopted, 

could impose some new or modified 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

compliance requirements on small 

entities. The NPRM proposes to apply 

existing E-Rate recordkeeping 

requirements to funding provided for 

the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots 

and services and seeks comment on 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85169 

whether additional recordkeeping 

requirements should be imposed, such 

as the requirement in the ECF program 

to maintain detailed equipment and 

service inventories for each device or 

service purchased with ECF support and 

provided to an individual student, 

school staff member, or library patron. 

The proposed actions would require 

schools and libraries to maintain 

inventory records of the Wi-Fi hotspot 

device make/model, the device serial 

number, the name of the person to 

whom the device was provided, and the 

dates the device was loaned out and 

returned to the school or library; and for 

services, the type of service provided, 

the broadband plan details (i.e., upload 

and download speeds and the monthly 

data cap), and the name of the person 

to whom the service was provided. To 

ensure the equipment and services are 

being used, the NPRM also seeks 

comment on whether applicants and/or 

service providers should be required to 

retain and produce monthly usage 

reports for Wi-Fi hotspots and services 

funded through the E-Rate program. 

59. Additionally, regarding the 

Commission’s proposal to prioritize for 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons that lack internet access outside 

of school or library premises, the NPRM 

asks whether applicants should be 

required to determine and maintain 

records of students’, school staff 

members’, or library patrons’ unmet 

need by, for example, conducting 

surveys. Although, new recordkeeping 

requirements may be implemented if the 

proposals in the NPRM are adopted, 

most of the recordkeeping would be 

similar to what most applicants, 

including small entities, are already 

familiar with and currently undertaking 

for the E-Rate and ECF programs. 

60. In assessing the cost of 

compliance for small entities, at this 

time the Commission cannot quantify 

the cost of compliance with any of the 

potential rule changes that may be 

adopted. Further, the Commission is not 

in a position to determine whether, if 

adopted, the proposals and matters 

upon which the NPRM seeks comment 

will require small entities to hire 

professionals to comply. The 

information the Commission receives in 

comments, including, where requested, 

cost information, will help the 

Commission identify and evaluate 

relevant compliance matters for small 

entities, including compliance costs and 

other burdens that may result from 

potential changes discussed in the 

NPRM. 

61. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, 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 or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ 

62. In the NPRM, the Commission 

takes steps to minimize the economic 

impact on small entities of the proposed 

changes to the E-Rate program on which 

it seeks comment. Absent the proposed 

action, schools and libraries receiving 

ECF program support may no longer be 

able to provide the broadband 

connectivity needed to engage in remote 

learning to their students, school staff, 

and library patrons once the program 

ends. The NPRM therefore proposes to 

make the off-premises use of Wi-Fi 

hotspots and services eligible for E-Rate 

funding to support remote learning for 

students, school staff, and library 

patrons with unmet needs, which, if 

adopted, will reduce the burden on 

applicants, including small entities, 

who seek to provide students, school 

staff, and library patrons the off-premise 

broadband connectivity needed for 

educational success. This proposal will 

also lessen the administrative 

requirements of cost-allocating certain 

portions of services used off-premises 

from applicants’ funding requests. The 

NPRM also seeks comment relevant to 

small entities, including entities in 

remote areas, by asking how to conduct 

competitive bidding for off-premises 

wireless services delivered to multiple 

locations. 

63. Additionally, the NPRM invites 

commenters to suggest other measures 

or alternatives the Commission should 

consider to best implement E-Rate 

funding for Wi-Fi hotspots and internet 

services for off-premises use. This may 

result in proposals from small entities 

that lessen the economic impact of the 

proposed changes to the E-Rate 

program, and increase their 

participation. The Commission expects 

the information received in the 

comments to allow it to more fully 

consider ways to minimize the 

economic impact on small entities and 

explore additional alternatives to 

improve and simplify opportunities for 

small entities to participate in the ERate program. 

64. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed 

Rules. None. 

65. Paperwork Reduction Act. This 

document seeks comment on possible 

modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

66. Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act. Consistent with the 

Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act, Public Law 118–9, a 

summary of this document will be 

available on https://www.fcc.gov/ 

proposed-rulemakings. 

67. Ex Parte Rules—Permit but 

Disclose. Pursuant to section 1.1200(a) 

of the Commission’s rules, the NPRM 

shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with section 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85170 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format 

(e.g.,.doc,.xml,.ppt, searchable.pdf). 

Participants in this proceeding should 

familiarize themselves with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

68. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority found in 

sections 1 through 4, 201–202, 254, 

303(r), and 403 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 

through 154, 201 through 202, 254, 

303(r), and 403, this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is adopted. 

69. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54 

Communications common carriers, 

Hotspots, Internet, Libraries, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Schools, Telecommunications, 

Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons set forth above, the 

Federal Communications Commission 

proposes to amend part 54 of title 47 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 54 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 

205, 214, 219, 220, 229, 254, 303(r), 403, 

1004, 1302, 1601–1609, and 1752, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend section 54.504 by adding 

paragraphs (a)(1)(x) through (xiii), and 

adding paragraph (f)(6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 54.504 Requests for services. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(x) If requesting support for Wi-Fi 

hotspots and service for use offpremises, the school or school 

consortium listed on the FCC Form 471 

application is only seeking support for 

eligible equipment and/or services 

provided to students and school staff 

who would otherwise lack internet 

access service sufficient to engage in 

remote learning. 

(xi) If requesting support for Wi-Fi 

hotspots and service for use offpremises, the library or library 

consortium listed on the FCC Form 471 

application is only seeking support for 

eligible equipment and/or services 

provided to library patrons who have 

signed and returned a statement 

(physically or electronically) that the 

library patron would otherwise lack 

access but for the use of equipment and/ 

or service provided by the library. 

(xii) If requesting support for Wi-Fi 

hotspots and service for use offpremises, the school, library, or 

consortium is not seeking support and 

reimbursement for eligible equipment 

and/or services that have been 

purchased and reimbursed in full with 

other federal, state, Tribal, or local 

funding, or providing duplicative 

equipment and/or services to a student, 

school staff member, or library patron. 

(xiii) The school, library, or 

consortium will create and maintain an 

equipment and service inventory as 

required by § 54.516(a)(3). 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(6) If requesting reimbursement for 

Wi-Fi hotspots and service for use offpremises, the service provider will 

provide the school, library, or 

consortium with notice if a student, 

school staff member, or library patron 

has not used the equipment and/or 

service within the past [30] days and 

will not willfully or knowingly request 

reimbursement or invoice the school, 

library, or consortium for eligible 

equipment and/or services that were not 

used. The service provider shall provide 

the school, library, or consortium with 

monthly usage data upon request. 

■ 3. Amend Section 54.516 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1), adding paragraph 

(a)(3), and revising paragraph (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 54.516 Auditing and inspections. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Schools, libraries, and consortia. 

Schools, libraries, and any consortium 

that includes schools or libraries shall 

retain all documents related to the 

application for, receipt, and delivery of 

supported services for at least 10 years 

after the latter of the last day of the 

applicable funding year or the service 

delivery deadline for the funding 

request. Any other document that 

demonstrates compliance with the 

statutory or regulatory requirements for 

the schools and libraries mechanism 

shall be retained as well. Subject to 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, schools, 

libraries, and consortia shall maintain 

asset and service inventory records for 

a period of 10 years from the last date 

of service or delivery of equipment. 

* * * * * 

(3) Asset and service inventory 

requirements. Schools, libraries, and 

consortia shall keep asset and service 

inventories as follows: 

(i) For equipment purchased as 

components of supported category two 

services, the asset inventory must be 

sufficient to verify the actual location of 

such equipment. 

(ii) For each Wi-Fi hotspot provided 

to an individual student, school staff 

member, or library patron, the asset 

inventory must identify: 

(A) The device or equipment make/ 

model; 

(B) The device or equipment serial 

number; 

(C) The full name of the person to 

whom the device or other piece of 

equipment was provided; and 

(D) The dates the device or other 

piece of equipment was loaned out and 

returned to the school or library, or the 

date the school or library was notified 

that the device or other piece of 

equipment was missing, lost, or 

damaged. 

(iii) For mobile wireless services 

provided through Wi-Fi hotspots to 

individual students, school staff, or 

library patrons, the service inventory 

must contain: 

(A) The type of service provided (i.e., 

mobile wireless); 

(B) The service plan details, including 

upload and download speeds and any 

monthly data cap; and 

(C) The full name of the person(s) to 

whom the service was provided. 

(b) Production of Records. Schools, 

libraries, consortia, and service 

providers shall produce such records at 

the request of any representative 

(including any auditor) appointed by a 

state education department, the 

Administrator, the FCC, or any local, 

state, or federal agency with jurisdiction 

over the entity. Where necessary for 

compliance with Federal or state 

privacy laws, E-Rate participants may 

produce records regarding students, 

school staff, and library patrons in an 

anonymized or deidentified format. 

When requested by the Administrator or 

the Commission, as part of an audit or 

investigation, schools, libraries, and 

consortia must seek consent to provide 

personally identifiable information from 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85171 

a student who has reach age of majority, 

the relevant parent/guardian of a minor 

student, or the school staff member or 

library patron prior to disclosure. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–26033 Filed 12–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 97 

[WT Docket No. 16–239; FCC 23–93; FR ID 

188661] 

Amateur Radio Service Rules To 

Permit Greater Flexibility in Data 

Communications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) adopted a Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that 

proposes to remove the baud rate 

limitation in the 135.7–137.8 kHz (2200 

meter band), 472–479 kHz (630 meter 

band), the very high frequency (VHF) 

bands, and the ultra-high frequency 

(UHF) band in the amateur radio 

service. The VHF bands with baud rates 

are the 6 meter band (50.1–51.0 MHz), 

(51.0–54.0 MHz); 2 meter band (144.1– 

148.0 MHz); and the 1.25 meter band 

(222–225 MHz). The UHF band with a 

baud rate is the 70 centimeter band 

(420–450 MHz). Additionally, the 

FNPRM proposes to maintain the 

existing bandwidth limitations in the 

Commission’s rules for these VHF/UHF 

bands and seeks comment on the 

appropriate bandwidth limitation for 

the 2200 meter and 630 meter bands. 

DATES: Comments due on or before 

January 8, 2024; reply comments due on 

or before January 22, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 16–239, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020). 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Nellie Foosaner of 

the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418– 

2925 or nellie.foosaner@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in WT 

Docket No. 16–239; FCC 23–93, adopted 

on November 13, 2023, and released on 

November 13, 2023. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection online at https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC23-93A1.pdf. 

Synopsis 

1. On November 13, 2023 the 

Commission adopted a Report and 

Order eliminating the baud rate 

applicable to certain amateur radio 

bands and implementing a 2.8 kHz 

bandwidth limitation in the applicable 

bands. There are multiple bands in the 

amateur radio service that have baud 

rate limitations and were not discussed 

in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) underlying the Report and 

Order. Two bands—135.7–137.8 kHz 

(2200 meter) and 472–479 kHz (630 

meter)—were allocated for use in the 

amateur radio service after the 

Commission released the NPRM in 

2016. There are also multiple very high 

frequency (VHF) bands and one ultrahigh frequency (UHF) band that have 

baud rate limitations. In the Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM) the Commission proposes to 

remove the baud rate limitation in the 

two bands allocated for amateur radio 

use after the Commission released the 

NPRM in 2016 and in the VHF/UHF 

bands. Additionally, the Commission 

seeks comment on the appropriate 

bandwidth limitation for the 2200 meter 

and 630 meter bands, and proposes to 

maintain the existing bandwidth 

limitations in the Commission’s rules 

for VHF/UHF bands. 

2. In 2016, the Commission released 

the NPRM seeking comment on 

eliminating the baud rate limit in 

certain amateur bands and amending 

part 97 of the Commission’s rules 

accordingly. The NPRM also tentatively 

concluded that a 2.8 kilohertz 

bandwidth limitation for RTTY and data 

emissions in the MF/HF bands was not 

necessary, but sought comment on this 

conclusion. The NPRM did not seek 

comment on eliminating the baud rate 

limit in the VHF or UHF bands allocated 

for amateur radio service. In 2017, the 

Commission adopted rules permitting 

fixed amateur radio operations in 135.7– 

137.8 kHz (2200 meter) and 472–479 

kHz (630 meter) bands. These bands are 

allocated to the amateur radio service on 

a secondary basis. Consistent with the 

part 97 rules in effect for other amateur 

bands at that time, the Commission 

adopted a 300 baud rate limitation for 

both the 2200 meter band and the 630 

meter band. 

3. For the reasons outlined in the 

Report and Order, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that it should 

eliminate the baud rate limitation in the 

2200 meter and 630 meter bands as well 

as the VHF and UHF amateur radio 

bands. These bands present the same 

technological opportunities for 

experimentation and innovation as the 

amateur radio service bands that are the 

subject of the Report and Order and 

likewise will be limited if a baud rate 

limitation is allowed to remain for these 

bands. Concomitantly, the Commission 

seeks comment on the appropriate 

bandwidth limitation for the 2200 meter 

band and the 630 meter band as well as 

on maintaining the bandwidth 

limitations already in the VHF and UHF 

bands. The Commission specifically 

seeks comment on these proposals. 

Alternatively, should it consider 

changing any of the existing bandwidth 

limitations in the VHF and UHF bands 

allocated to the amateur radio service? 

Commenters seeking to modify existing 

bandwidth limitations must provide 

support for the modification, including 

any associated costs and benefits. 

Commenters should focus their 

comments on the VHF and UHF bands 

and the 2200 meter band and the 630 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1