4182 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS—Continued 

Missouri 

citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

10–5.390 ........ Control of Emissions from the Manufacturing 

of Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels 

and Other Allied Surface Coating Products.

9/30/2020 [Date of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], [Federal Register citation of the final rule].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–01502 Filed 1–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 282 

[EPA–R03–UST–2021–0715, FRL 8879–01– 

R3] 

District of Columbia: Final Approval of 

State Underground Storage Tank 

Program Revisions, Codification, and 

Incorporation by Reference 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act of 1965, as amended 

(commonly known as the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA)), the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the District of Columbia’s 

Underground Storage Tank (UST) 

program submitted by the District of 

Columbia. This action is based on EPA’s 

determination that these revisions 

satisfy all requirements needed for 

program approval. This action also 

proposes to codify EPA’s approval of the 

District of Columbia’s state program and 

to incorporate by reference those 

provisions of the District of Columbia’s 

regulations and statutes that we have 

determined meet the requirements for 

approval. The provisions will be subject 

to EPA’s inspection and enforcement 

authorities under sections 9005 and 

9006 of RCRA Subtitle I and other 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

provisions. In the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this issue of the 

Federal Register, EPA is approving this 

action by a direct final rule. If no 

significant negative comment is 

received, EPA will not take further 

action on this proposed rulemaking, and 

the direct final rule will be effective 60 

days from the date of publication in this 

Federal Register. If you want to 

comment on EPA’s proposed approval 

of District of Columbia’s revisions to its 

state UST program, you must do so at 

this time. 

DATES: Send written comments by 

February 28, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, 

identified by EPA–R03–UST–2021– 

0715, by one of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: thompson.khalia@epa.gov. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No.EPA–R03–UST–2021– 

0715. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

available online at https://

www.regulations.gov including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through https://

www.regulations.gov, or email. The 

federal website, https://

www.regulations.gov, is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, which means EPA will 

not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to EPA without 

going through https://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties, and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. EPA encourages electronic 

submittals, but if you are unable to 

submit electronically, please reach out 

to the EPA contact person listed in the 

notice for assistance. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English, or you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

reach out to the EPA contact person by 

email or phone. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Khalia Thompson, (215) 814–3348, 

thompson.khalia@epa.gov, RCRA 

Programs Branch; Land, Chemicals, and 

Redevelopment Division; EPA Region 3, 

1650 Arch Street (Mailcode 3LD30), 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has 

explained the reasons for this action in 

the preamble to the direct final rule. For 

additional information, see the direct 

final rule published in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

Authority: This proposed rule is issued 

under the authority of section 9004 of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6991c. 

Adam Ortiz, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01433 Filed 1–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 21–455; FCC 21–124; FRS 

64970] 

Promoting Fair and Open Competitive 

Bidding in the E-Rate Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) proposes a change to the 

E-Rate program targeted at several goals: 

Streamlining program requirements for 

applicants and service providers, 

strengthening program integrity, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 4183 

preventing improper payments, and 

decreasing the risk of fraud, waste, and 

abuse. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on a proposal to 

implement a central document 

repository (i.e., bidding portal) through 

which service providers would be 

required to submit bids to the E-Rate 

program administrator, the Universal 

Service Administrative Company 

(USAC), instead of directly to 

applicants. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 28, 2022, and reply comments 

are due on or before April 27, 2022. 

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 in the 

following as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 21–455, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: www.fcc.gov/ecfs. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

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 Federal Communications 

Commission, 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 and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, please contact Cara 

Voth, Office of Managing Director, at 

Cara.Voth@fcc.gov or 202–418–0025, or 

Joseph Schlingbaum, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at Joseph.Schlingbaum@fcc.gov or 202– 

418–0829. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC 

Docket No. 21–455, adopted on 

December 14, 2021 and released on 

December 16, 2021. Due to the COVID– 

19 pandemic, the Commission’s 

headquarters will be closed to the 

general public until further notice. The 

full text of this document is available at 

the following internet address: https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-lookspromote-fair-open-competitive-biddinge-rate-program-0. 

Ex Parte Presentations—Permit-ButDisclose. This proceeding shall be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 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 

filing 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 § 1.1206(b) 

of the Commission’s rules. In 

proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) of the 

Commission’s rules 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. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be available via 

ECFS. Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat. When the FCC 

Headquarters reopens to the public, 

these documents will also be available 

for public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

I. Introduction 

1. For over two decades, schools and 

libraries have relied on the Federal 

Communications Commission’s E-Rate 

program to secure affordable 

telecommunications and broadband 

services to provide connectivity for 

schools and libraries and connections 

for students and library patrons. In 

recent years, the Commission has kept 

pace with a changing digital landscape 

and adapted the E-Rate program to meet 

program participants’ growing demand 

for broadband and more equitable 

access to funding for Wi-Fi networks 

and other internal connections. And, to 

address the daunting challenges that 

schools and libraries have faced in 

enabling and facilitating remote learning 

for students and virtual library services 

for library patrons during the 

coronavirus (COVID–19) pandemic, 

Congress and the Commission have 

provided flexibility and funding to 

support remote learning. 

2. At the same time as the 

Commission has provided enhanced 

access to funding and flexibility in 

meeting evolving public needs, it has 

been mindful of the need to protect ERate funds, requiring them to be 

committed for eligible services and 

equipment provided to eligible entities, 

for eligible purposes, and in accordance 

with program rules. Inherent in 

maintaining good stewardship of 

program funds is the Commission’s 

commitment to protect against waste, 

fraud, and abuse and ensure that funds 

are properly disbursed and used for 

appropriate purposes. Last year, an 

audit completed by the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) identified 

opportunities to misrepresent 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
4184 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

compliance with competitive bidding 

requirements as an underlying fraud 

risk for the E-Rate program. Similarly, 

the Commission’s Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) has recommended 

safeguards to protect the E-Rate 

program, including establishing a 

central repository for the submission of 

competitive bidding documents and a 

holding period, so that bids are not 

released to applicants until after the 

closing of a 28-day bidding window. 

3. Taking into account these 

recommendations, the Commission 

proposes a change to the E-Rate program 

targeted at several goals: Streamlining 

program requirements for applicants 

and service providers, strengthening 

program integrity, preventing improper 

payments, and decreasing the risk of 

fraud, waste, and abuse. Specifically, 

the Commission seeks comment on a 

proposal to implement a central 

document repository (i.e., bidding 

portal) through which service providers 

would be required to submit bids to the 

E-Rate program administrator, USAC, 

instead of directly to applicants. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

requiring USAC to temporarily withhold 

submitted bids from applicants for a 

stated minimum period of time. In 

addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether to revise its rules 

to require applicants to submit 

competitive bidding documentation that 

is not captured in the bidding portal. 

Finally, the Commission seeks comment 

on any potential benefits and burdens 

that the adoption and implementation of 

a bidding portal and these associated 

changes would have on E-Rate program 

participants and the public as well as 

any required rule modifications needed 

to effectuate these changes. 

II. Discussion 

4. The Commission proposes changes 

to the competitive bidding process for 

the E-Rate program to enhance program 

integrity and administrative efficiency. 

Specifically, the Commission proposes 

to require prospective service providers 

to respond to applicant requests for 

services and equipment by uploading 

bids into a bidding portal managed by 

USAC, rather than by submitting bids 

directly to applicants. The Commission 

also seeks comment on establishing 

timeframes on when applicants should 

be able to review the bids that service 

providers submit in the portal. Further, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

requiring applicants to submit bidding 

selection documentation, such as bid 

comparison matrices and related 

contract documents, at the time 

applicants request funding for eligible 

services. The Commission seeks 

comment on these program changes to 

guide and assist E-Rate program 

participants in complying with the 

Commission’s competitive bidding 

rules, provide transparency and 

promote fair and open competitive 

bidding processes, and minimize 

potential fraud risk for the E-Rate 

program. 

5. The 2020 GAO E-Rate Report 

highlights that USAC does not have a 

proactive way to monitor the bidding 

information submitted by bidders and 

must rely on requesting such 

information from applicants or service 

providers after the culmination of the 

bidding process. The Report identifies 

opportunities to misrepresent 

compliance with the competitive 

bidding rules and processes as an 

underlying key fraud risk and notes that 

such an opportunity exists because of 

the lack of visibility into the 

competitive bids that applicants receive. 

The GAO also references the OIG’s 

previous recommendation that the 

Commission direct USAC to implement 

an online competitive-bidding 

repository. The OIG had asserted that 

‘‘[s]ubmission of service provider bids 

prior to bid selection . . . [would] 

prevent[] a service provider or applicant 

from submitting an altered bid or 

contract to USAC during its Program 

Integrity Assurance (PIA) review to 

create the appearance of compliance 

with [p]rogram rules.’’ In response to 

these concerns, the Commission 

recognizes that a bidding portal could 

provide better insights for USAC in an 

effort to strengthen the integrity of the 

E-Rate program. 

6. The Commission proposes to 

require service providers to submit bids 

responsive to FCC Forms 470 through a 

bid portal managed by USAC, rather 

than by sending bids directly to the 

applicant. The Commission anticipates 

that requiring service providers to 

submit bids for requested E-Rate 

services and equipment through a 

bidding portal will improve USAC’s and 

the Commission’s ability to ensure that 

all entities participating in the E-Rate 

program conduct a fair and open 

competitive bidding process. The 

Commission expects that, in addition to 

other benefits, a portal that stores E-Rate 

service providers’ bids could prevent 

certain improper payments and 

compliance findings related to 

applicants’ failures to produce bid 

documentation when such 

documentation is requested by USAC in 

the pre-commitment and postcommitment stages of application 

review. Moreover, because the bidding 

portal will track and store bids and 

related communications, the portal 

could save time and increase 

efficiencies for both applicants and 

USAC with regard to competitive 

bidding reviews and audits. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

a bidding portal would help to promote 

fair and open competitive bidding and 

reduce fraud. The Commission also 

seeks comment on how great the risk is 

that applicants or service providers may 

alter or ignore qualified bids to affect 

the bidding process. Would a bidding 

portal complement or supplement 

existing rules and procedures to reduce 

bid collusion and the risk of fraud in the 

competitive bidding process? Are there 

solutions other than a bidding portal or 

changes to the competitive bidding rules 

that could likewise reduce bid collusion 

and the risk of fraud? Commenters are 

invited to address the feasibility, 

necessity, and cost effectiveness of 

implementing a nationwide bidding 

portal. Are there any other benefits or 

burdens the Commission should 

consider, either to stakeholders or the 

broader public, in deciding whether to 

implement its competitive bidding 

proposal? 

7. The Commission recognizes that 

requiring bid responses to be submitted 

to USAC through a bidding portal 

would change how service providers 

submit and share bids with applicants. 

While these changes may streamline 

documentation submission and the 

competitive bidding procedures for 

applicants and service providers, as 

well as increase transparency for USAC 

and the Commission into the bidding 

process, they also may present obstacles 

for applicants and service providers. 

Therefore, the Commission seeks 

comment on the impact of this proposed 

requirement on E-Rate program 

participants, particularly smaller 

schools and libraries. Should service 

providers submit their bids directly 

through the bidding portal or by some 

other method? Would the requirement 

to use a central bidding portal 

discourage participation by applicants 

and service providers in the E-Rate 

program? Would applicants be more 

inclined to hire consultants if a bidding 

portal is imposed? How would these 

changes benefit or burden E-Rate 

program participants? For example, 

would requiring bids to be uploaded to 

a central repository managed by USAC 

help applicants comply with the 

Commission requirement to retain 

documentation demonstrating 

compliance with E-Rate program 

requirements? Commenters are 

requested to quantify benefits and 

burdens, both in terms of time and 

money. Do these changes promote any 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 4185 

cost and resource efficiencies for E-Rate 

program participants because they 

provide ‘‘automated’’ assistance with 

USAC’s efforts to seek competitive 

bidding compliance documentation 

during Program Integrity Assurance and 

program audit reviews? Are there any 

other alternatives the Commission 

should consider to ensure that 

applicants and service providers comply 

with competitive bidding rules? 

8. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether service providers 

should be required to submit 

information in a manner that enables 

applicants to compare competing bids. 

Do applicants face difficulty in 

comparing bids because service 

providers have submitted their bid 

responses in a variety of formats? Are 

there other changes the Commission 

should consider that could reduce 

burdens related to competitive bidding 

for applicants and service providers in 

using a bidding portal? In some cases, 

applicants do not receive any bids or 

receive bids that are not responsive to 

their requests for service during the 

specified bidding period. The 

Commission proposes that the portal 

allow applicants in these situations to 

extend their competitive bidding 

periods as needed and seeks comment 

on this proposal. Alternatively, could 

the Commission treat the bidding portal 

as a repository for bids, that would 

permit applicants to upload bids 

received after the fact, but would not 

require service providers to submit bids 

through the portal? The Commission 

seeks comment on the potential benefits 

and drawbacks of using the bidding 

portal in this manner. 

9. Bid Holding Period. E-Rate program 

rules currently require applicants wait 

at least 28 days from the posting of their 

FCC Form 470 before entering into an 

agreement with a service provider. 

Actual deadlines for bids to be 

submitted vary by applicant and are not 

set by Commission rules or E-Rate 

program requirements. Applicants are 

permitted to post FCC Forms 470 as 

soon as USAC releases the form. 

Currently, applicants are able to review 

submitted bids from service providers as 

they are received which may introduce 

risk into a fair and open competitive 

bidding process. In the 2017 OIG 

Report, the OIG recommended that 

USAC hold service provider bids in a 

bid repository for a ‘‘28-day bidding 

window’’ to ensure that service 

providers were competing on a ‘‘level 

playing field.’’ 

10. The Commission seeks comment 

on requiring applicants to wait a 

specified amount of time before they 

can access bids submitted in response to 

their FCC Form 470 service requests. Is 

28 days an appropriate length of time to 

withhold bids? Is a shorter or longer 

period appropriate in general or for 

specific circumstances? Should the 

withholding period be tied to a specific 

event such as the posting of an 

applicant’s FCC Form 470? If applicants 

are required to wait before they can 

access bids submitted in response to 

their FCC Form 470 service requests, 

how would the timing variability of 

their procurements be impacted by such 

a proposal? Would a minimum bid 

holding period assist an applicant in 

complying with § 54.503(c)(4) because it 

would not be able to view bids for at 

least four weeks and would presumably 

be prevented from entering into 

agreements until that time? If the 

Commission requires applicants to wait 

a specified amount of time before 

accessing bids, should it also preclude 

service providers from sharing bids 

directly with applicants during this time 

period? The Commission seeks 

comment on these questions. 

11. In some cases, for a variety of 

reasons, applicants file their FCC Forms 

470 toward the end of E-Rate 

application filing window closing date, 

leaving little time remaining to wait a 

minimum of 28 days, select service 

providers, and seek funding. If the 

Commission is to require applicants to 

wait a specified length of time before 

accessing bids, are there safeguards it 

can implement to help applicants better 

align their timelines? For example, 

should the ability to file an FCC Form 

470 be closed for a certain period of 

time before the FCC Form 471 window 

closes to allow for both a minimum 

number of days (e.g., a 28-day waiting 

period) plus additional time (e.g., two 

weeks) for applicants to review bids and 

make service provider selections? Are 

there processes that would be disrupted 

by withholding bid responses from 

applicants for a minimum period of 

time? The Commission seeks comment 

on this or other proposals that would 

allow any waiting period it may adopt 

to align with applicants’ need for time 

for bid analysis and provider selection. 

To better understand the potential 

impact on applicants, the Commission 

also seeks information on the reasons 

why some applicants post FCC Forms 

470 to initiate the competitive bidding 

process near the end of the FCC Form 

471 filing window. 

12. The Commission seeks comment 

on any overall program benefits these 

proposals may offer to applicants, 

including the prevention of inadvertent 

errors that lead them to run afoul of the 

E-Rate competitive bidding 

requirements. What other compliance 

issues with the Commission’s 

competitive bidding requirements might 

their proposals help applicants and 

service providers avoid? Should the 

Commission consider changes to the 

training and outreach that USAC offers 

to applicants and service providers to 

address issues relating to competitive 

bidding and document retention, as 

SECA suggests? Are there other aspects 

of the competitive bidding rules that are 

confusing, burdensome, or vague that 

may lead to inadvertent, but not 

necessarily fraudulent, competitive 

bidding violations? If so, what are they 

and what modifications might the 

Commission make to resolve any 

confusion and provide clarity around 

these rules? 

13. System Issues. The Commission 

seeks comment on how best to leverage 

the existing web-based account and 

application management portal, known 

as the E-Rate Productivity Center or EPC 

in implementing a bidding portal. Are 

there specific administrative burdens or 

benefits that the Commission should 

consider if the bidding portal is 

integrated with EPC? Conversely, what 

administrative burdens or benefits are 

associated with using a separate system 

for this purpose? Is there a risk of 

applicant confusion and technical 

difficulty if applicants are asked to use 

two systems to store documentation for 

the E-Rate program? Or does it matter to 

applicants, so long as the user 

experience is not compromised? Can 

any obstacles be overcome with user 

testing and outreach? 

14. Interaction with State and Local 

Procurement Rules. E-Rate applicants 

are required to comply with all 

applicable state and local procurement 

rules, in addition to the E-Rate 

competitive bidding rules. What are the 

existing state procurement laws, local 

procedures and best practices that 

promote fair and open competition? 

Would the creation of a bidding portal 

conflict with these state and local 

procurement requirements? Would 

adopting an E-Rate bidding portal 

require service providers submitting 

bids in certain jurisdictions to submit 

bids in more than one way because of 

existing state or local requirements? If 

so, the Commission seeks more 

information on the specific 

circumstances in which service 

providers are required to submit their 

bids for eligible services through other 

mechanisms. If, for example, certain 

state or local requirements mandate that 

service providers submit bids directly to 

applicants such as through email, or 

through another online platform that 

would allow applicants to view bids 

before they would be permitted to under 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
4186 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

any new E-Rate requirements, how 

might that impact the usefulness of a 

USAC-administered portal? Other state 

law requirements may include a minibid process when selecting vendors 

from a multiple award state master 

contract. Would the bidding portal 

interfere with applicants who use a state 

master contract that requires a mini-bid 

process? In addition, some states may 

have requirements relating to public 

disclosure of bids, prequalification of 

bidders and treatment of proprietary or 

confidential information. How should 

the Commission take those requirements 

into account in establishing a bidding 

portal? Although the current E-Rate 

competitive bidding requirements apply 

in addition to state and local 

competitive bidding requirements and 

are not intended to preempt such state 

or local requirements, the Commission 

seeks comment on how to address any 

apparent conflicts with the goals the 

Commission is attempting to achieve 

through the proposals stated herein. 

Additionally, the Commission is aware 

that certain state, local or other 

requirements, as well as other factors, 

may dictate varying procurement 

timeframes and processes for different 

applicants in the E-Rate program. The 

Commission seeks comment on how the 

use of the proposed E-Rate competitive 

bidding portal or an imposed waiting 

period could impact procurement 

timing for these applicants. 

15. Other Bidding Portal 

Considerations. Are there potential 

obstacles the Commission should 

examine? For example, or pose 

technical challenges? The Commission 

also seeks comment on the impact of 

these proposals on applicants’ bidding 

processes, including their timing for 

review and selection of providers. 

16. The use of the bidding portal 

would not be required for the 

procurement of services that have been 

granted a competitive bidding 

exemption per the Commission’s rules. 

Are there any other scenarios in which 

E-Rate participants should not be 

required to use the bidding portal? Are 

there any functions of the bidding portal 

that should be used by applicants with 

exemptions to help USAC review and 

ascertain compliance with competitive 

bidding rules? For example, for those 

applicants using state master contracts, 

is there documentation that applicants 

should be required to upload into the 

portal to demonstrate compliance with 

the E-Rate rules? The Commission seeks 

comment on any additional 

considerations that may impact 

applicants’ and service providers’ use of 

the bidding portal. 

17. E-Rate program applicants and the 

Rural Health Care (RHC) program 

applicants currently submit different 

information to USAC at different points 

in their respective application 

processes. E-Rate applicants routinely 

submit bidding and contract 

documentation if requested by USAC or 

auditors as part of pre-commitment 

reviews (e.g., standard PIA questions 

concerning bidding or special 

compliance competitive bidding 

reviews); during post-commitment 

comprehensive audits; and, during 

payment quality assurance reviews for 

computing the percentage of improper 

payments that must be reported 

annually to Congress. By contrast, in the 

RHC program, applicants are required to 

‘‘submit documentation to support their 

certifications that they have selected the 

most cost-effective option’’ at the time a 

funding request is submitted to USAC. 

RHC program applicants must also 

submit contract documentation with 

their funding requests. 

18. The Commission proposes to align 

the competitive bidding documentation 

requirements of the E-Rate program with 

RHC program rules. Under this 

proposal, E-Rate applicants would 

similarly be required to submit 

documentation demonstrating 

compliance with the competitive 

bidding rules and requirements at the 

time they submit their FCC Forms 471 

to seek funding in the E-Rate program. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. Should applicants in the ERate program be required to submit the 

same competitive bidding 

documentation with their funding 

requests as required in the RHC 

program? Is such a requirement 

appropriate and necessary? Is more or 

less information needed from E-Rate 

applicants to demonstrate program 

compliance? For example, are the 

bidding materials the portal would 

already capture, such as the bids and 

related communications, plus the 

applicant submission of its bid 

comparison documentation, sufficient 

for compliance review? Or, should the 

Commission consider requiring the 

submission of additional 

documentation? For example, if 

applicants do not receive any bids in 

response to their posted requests, 

should applicants be required to 

provide other documentation explaining 

how they selected their selected service 

provider? Would requiring applicants to 

provide contracting documents help 

applicants demonstrate compliance and 

help protect the program from fraud, 

waste and abuse? Are there other factors 

to take into consideration, such as the 

size of the applicant or the amount of 

their new contracts? 

19. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether there could or 

should be controls in the process to 

prevent applicants from proceeding 

with filing their FCC Forms 471 before 

submitting required competitive bidding 

and contract documentation. For 

example, should there be a systemimplemented control put in place and 

should applicants not have access to file 

FCC Forms 471 in EPC until required 

documents are uploaded into the portal? 

Or, would it be less burdensome on both 

applicants and USAC to direct USAC to 

not process FCC Forms 471 until the 

required documentation has been filed? 

20. The Commission seeks to facilitate 

greater transparency for USAC and them 

into the bidding process to help 

minimize fraud risk. The lack of 

transparency in the bidding process 

makes it more challenging for USAC 

and the Commission to ascertain 

compliance with E-Rate program rules. 

When applicants are not able to provide 

bidding documentation to show 

compliance with the Commission’s 

rules upon request, USAC must render 

the request as non-compliant and deny 

funds, or if findings regarding lack of 

competitive bidding documentation are 

made pursuant to audit, and funds have 

been disbursed, these are deemed 

improper payments and funding must 

be returned. Similarly, when applicants 

submit bidding documentation after the 

fact, there is less certainty about the 

validity of the bidding process. The 

Commission seeks comment on its 

proposal to align E-Rate rules with RHC 

obligations by requiring applicants to 

submit competitive bidding 

documentation to demonstrate 

compliance with the Commission’s 

rules. 

21. Section 54.516 requires applicants 

to retain bids and other documentation 

related to E-Rate-supported services for 

at least 10 years after the later of the last 

day of the applicable funding year or the 

service delivery deadline, and to 

produce that documentation at the 

request of USAC, the Commission, or 

state or other federal agencies. 

22. After the competitive bidding 

process is complete, the Commission 

anticipates that all documentation 

associated with the FCC Form 470 

Service Request (e.g., bids, bidder 

questions and related correspondence, 

selection documentation, contract 

documentation) could be securely 

stored in the bidding portal. Using the 

portal as a repository of these 

documents could serve to minimize the 

need for outreach and improve process 

efficiencies for USAC and E-Rate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 4187 

program participants. The Commission 

seeks comment on the use of the portal 

as a repository of documents and how 

this might serve the public interest by 

placing fewer burdens on participants in 

the program. Are there any alternatives 

the Commission should consider? 

23. The Commission seeks comment 

on how the use of the bidding portal for 

document storage relates to the 

Commission’s E-Rate recordkeeping 

requirements, codified at § 54.516 of the 

Commission’s rules. Should E-Rate 

participants be exempt from certain 

recordkeeping requirements if 

participants properly submitted the 

documents into the portal? Should 

applicants and service providers be 

permitted access to their stored 

competitive bidding documents for a 

period long enough to be able to comply 

with recordkeeping requirements? Also, 

if E-Rate program participants retain 

access to their records, should this 

access be afforded to them in a way to 

permit them to produce the records at 

the request of any representative 

(including any auditor) appointed by a 

state education department, USAC, the 

Commission, or any local, state or 

federal agency with jurisdiction over the 

entity, as is required by § 54.516(b)? The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

there are any legal or other barriers to 

having E-Rate program participants 

comply with documentation and 

recordkeeping requirements by 

operation of using the bidding portal to 

store their competitive bidding records. 

24. Recognizing that E-Rate 

competitive bidding can be an iterative 

process, the Commission seeks 

comment on how it can best use the 

portal to accommodate related steps of 

the process. How can the portal 

replicate or enhance the typical 

activities that can and do occur during 

the competitive bidding process and are 

necessary for successful bidding 

outcomes for applicants? For example, 

during procurement periods service 

providers are typically able to submit 

questions about requests for service in 

FCC Forms 470 and Requests for 

Proposals (RFPs) and receive answers 

from the applicants. All potential 

bidders and service providers must have 

access to the same information and must 

be treated in the same manner 

throughout the procurement process as 

required by the Commission’s rules. 

Likewise, applicants may have 

questions about bid responses for 

service providers that lead to 

clarifications about bids. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

these activities should be required to 

occur in the portal. If so, the 

Commission proposes that questions 

and answers about service requests and 

RFPs be anonymously made available 

and viewable to the applicants and all 

interested bidders for the requested 

services, and the portal should be used 

to track and store this correspondence. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. Also, the Commission seeks 

comment on how the portal should 

handle clarifications sought by 

applicants about bids that have been 

submitted and made available for 

review. 

25. The Commission seeks comment 

on what other types of communications 

between service providers and 

applicants and procurement activities 

should be captured in the portal, and 

how to implement this in a way that is 

streamlined and easy to use for E-Rate 

program participants. Are there other 

types of functionality that should be 

considered for the bidding portal, and 

how should these functions be 

implemented in a way that will help 

support fair and open competitive 

bidding? 

26. The Commission also seeks 

comment on those procurement 

processes that facilitate bidding in 

stages, potentially including initial and 

subsequent rounds of bidding (e.g., 

requests for best and final offers). 

Because these are procurement steps 

that effectively extend the competitive 

bidding period, how should they be 

captured in the bidding portal and how 

would this impact the proposal in this 

document to implement a time period 

when bids are withheld from 

applicants? How could these processes 

be replicated and captured in the bid 

portal in a way that maintains 

anonymity and refrains from bid 

disclosure yet promotes transparency? 

Would the use of a bidding portal 

interfere with a multi-stage procurement 

process and if so, how? 

27. Implementation of a competitive 

bidding portal would require significant 

development and implementation 

resources, from the Commission, USAC, 

and E-Rate stakeholders. If adopted, the 

Commission proposes that USAC, 

working with the Wireline Competition 

Bureau (Bureau) and the Office of 

Managing Director (OMD), initiate 

technical development of a competitive 

bidding portal as soon as possible, with 

a goal of making it available for funding 

year 2024. The Commission further 

proposes E-Rate stakeholder outreach 

and engagement to ensure that the 

bidding portal meets the needs of 

applicants and service providers and 

facilitates a smooth transition. To the 

extent necessary, the Commission 

proposes delegating authority to the 

Bureau and OMD to address 

implementation details that may arise, 

consistent with any rules that are 

ultimately adopted. By engaging 

stakeholders and empowering the 

Bureau and OMD to resolve technical 

and logistical implementation issues, 

the Commission anticipates that a 

competitive bidding portal could be 

completed efficiently and effectively. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

these proposals, including the proposed 

implementation timeframe. Would 

launching the portal so that it would be 

operational for the start of the funding 

year 2024 competitive bidding period be 

feasible in light of the technical and 

logistical challenges involved? The 

Commission notes that the bidding 

portal would need to be completed and 

live by July 1, 2023, the first day to 

initiate competitive bidding processes 

for funding year 2024. Is there sufficient 

time to design, develop, and implement 

a bidding portal by July 1, 2023? If the 

portal opens on July 1, 2023, will this 

allow enough time for applicants and 

service providers to receive training on 

how to use the portal to be able to 

successfully submit and receive bids for 

funding year 2024? Are there any other 

issues that may arise if the Commission 

shifts from the current approach to a 

centralized competitive bidding portal? 

Commenters are invited to raise any 

operational, legal, logistical, or 

administrative concerns that the 

Commission has not already identified. 

28. The Commission proposes 

amending § 54.503 of the Commission’s 

rules to require service providers to 

submit bids responsive to FCC Forms 

470 in a bidding portal. The 

Commission seeks comment on other 

related rule changes, including the 

proposal for USAC to withhold bids 

from applicants for a minimum period 

and to require applicants to submit 

competitive bidding compliance 

documentation at the time they seek ERate funding by submitting FCC Forms 

471. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposed rule, and whether 

there are other conforming rule changes 

that the Commission should consider. 

Relatedly, the Commission seeks 

comment on any impacts these changes, 

if adopted, would or should have on 

existing E-Rate program forms and the 

certifications to those forms. 

29. Finally, the Commission proposes 

to make an additional minor 

amendment to § 54.503(b) of the 

Commission’s rules which incorrectly 

indicated that the exemption to the ERate competitive bidding requirements 

is in § 54.511(c) when instead it is 

referenced in § 54.503(e). Are there 

other rule changes that may be needed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
4188 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

as a result of the Commission’s 

proposals? 

30. Digital Equity and Inclusion. 

Finally, 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 

accessibility, as well the scope of the 

Commission’s relevant legal authority. 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

31. This proposed rule may contain 

new or modified information 

collection(s) subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. If the 

Commission adopts any new or 

modified information collection 

requirements, they will be submitted to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under § 3507(d) of the 

PRA. OMB, the general public, and 

other federal agencies will be invited to 

comment on the new or modified 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proceeding. In 

addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how it might ‘‘further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

32. 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 this Modernizing 

the E-Rate Program for Schools and 

Libraries Program, et al, NPRM. Written 

comments are requested on this IRFA. 

The Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. Responsive 

comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

on or before 30 days from publication of 

this item in the Federal Register. Reply 

comments to the IRFA must be filed on 

or before 60 days from publication of 

this item in the Federal Register. 

33. The rules the Commission 

proposes in this proposed rule are 

directed at improving the competitive 

bidding process for the E-Rate program. 

The new requirements, if adopted, 

would require service providers to 

submit bids in response to requests for 

services into a bidding portal managed 

by USAC. The requirements, if adopted, 

may also require an applicant to wait for 

a period of time before it can review 

service providers’ responsive bids. The 

proposed regulations would also require 

E-Rate applicants to submit competitive 

bidding documentation into the bidding 

portal to help demonstrate compliance 

with the rules, e.g., bid comparison 

documentation. One of the objectives of 

the proposed rule changes and 

implementation bidding portal is to 

assist applicants in complying with the 

competitive bidding requirements and 

related documentation requirements. 

34. The legal basis for this proposed 

rule is contained in sections 1 through 

4, 201, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended by the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 

201, 254, 303(r), and 403. 

35. 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 regulations, 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 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

36. 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 

here, 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 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 30.7 million businesses. 

37. 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 2018, there were approximately 

571,709 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. 

38. 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 that 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.’’ 

39. Small entities potentially affected 

by the proposed regulations herein 

include Schools and Libraries, 

Telecommunications Service Providers, 

Internet Service Providers, and Vendors 

of Internal Connections. 

40. The proposal under consideration 

would require service providers that 

seek to bid on requests for services in 

the E-Rate program, bid in a portal. An 

additional proposal would require ERate program applicants to submit 

bidding documentation into the bidding 

portal before they seek funding for 

eligible services to demonstrate 

compliance with program rules for 

competitive bidding. The records that 

would be requested for submission into 

the portal are the same records that 

program participants must retain and 

must produce upon request to the 

Commission, USAC, and other entities 

with authority over the participants. 

41. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 4189 

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. 

42. In this proposed rule, the 

Commission seeks comment on a reform 

to the E-Rate program. The Commission 

seeks to update program rules and 

administration for applicants and 

service providers that participate in the 

E-Rate program and therefore must 

follow the E-Rate competitive bidding 

requirements. The Commission 

recognizes that its proposed regulations 

would impact small entities. The rules 

the Commission proposes may decrease 

recordkeeping burdens on small entities 

and may increase reporting burdens on 

small entities. 

43. Service providers required to 

submit bids on services in bidding 

portal. By requiring bidding to take 

place in the portal, the portal would 

capture and save the bids, as well as any 

related applicant and service provider 

correspondence. While this may not 

eliminate recordkeeping requirements, 

it should serve to make compliance with 

these requirements less burdensome. 

44. Compliance burdens. Service 

providers currently bid to provide 

services in the E-Rate program in a 

variety of ways, and the bidding portal 

requirement may be in addition to 

bidding requirements that may exist 

outside of universal service program 

rules. Implementing the Commission’s 

proposed regulations may also impose 

some burden on small applicant entities 

by requiring them to submit competitive 

bidding compliance documentation in 

the portal before seeking funding for 

requested services. 

B. Ordering Clauses 

45. Accordingly, it is ordered, that, 

pursuant to the authority found in 

sections 1 through 4, 201, 254, 303(r) 

and 403 of the Communications Act of 

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

through 154, 201, 254, 303(r), and 403, 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

adopted. 

46. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to applicable procedures set forth in 

§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 

parties may file comments on the NPRM 

on or before 60 days from publication of 

this document in the Federal Register, 

and reply comments on or before 90 

days from publication of this document 

in the Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54 

Communications common carriers, 

Infants and children, Internet, Libraries, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Schools, 

Telecommunications,. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

Proposed Regulations 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 54 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, and 1601–1609, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 54.503 by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (c)(4), and adding 

paragraphs (c)(5) and (6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 54.503 Competitive Bidding 

Requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Competitive bid requirements. 

Except as provided in paragraph (e) of 

this section, an eligible school, library, 

or consortium that includes an eligible 

school or library shall seek competitive 

bids, pursuant to the requirements 

established in this subpart, for all 

services eligible for support under 

§ 54.502. These competitive bid 

requirements apply in addition to state 

and local competitive bid requirements 

and are not intended to preempt such 

state or local requirements. 

(c) * * * 

(4) After posting on the 

Administrator’s website an eligible 

school, library, or consortium FCC Form 

470, the Administrator shall send 

confirmation of the posting to the entity 

requesting service. Providers of services 

shall not respond to a request for 

services directly to the requesting entity 

and shall not reveal responses to other 

parties, including other providers of 

services, but shall submit responses 

through a secured website portal 

(‘‘bidding portal’’ or ‘‘bid portal’’) 

managed by the Administrator. The 

requesting entity shall then wait at least 

28 days from the date on which its 

description of services is posted on the 

Administrator’s website before making 

commitments with the selected 

providers of services. The confirmation 

from the Administrator shall include the 

date after which the requestor may sign 

a contract with its chosen provider(s). 

(5) Service providers shall respond to 

requests for services through a secured 

website portal (‘‘bidding portal’’ or ‘‘bid 

portal’’) managed by the Administrator, 

by uploading bids into the portal. 

Service providers will not have access 

to the bids of other service providers. 

Service providers may anonymously 

submit questions or other inquiries to 

applicants through the bidding portal, to 

which applicants must respond during 

the competitive bidding process. No 

communication between service 

providers and applicants related to the 

competitive bid or the competitive 

bidding process is permitted outside of 

the bidding portal during the 

competitive bidding process. All 

potential program bidders and service 

providers must have access to the same 

information and must be treated in the 

same manner throughout the 

procurement process. 

(6) After making commitments with 

the selected providers of services, and 

prior to submitting an FCC Form 471 

seeking to receive discounts on eligible 

services, eligible schools, libraries, or 

consortia shall upload the following to 

the bidding portal: 

(i) Competitive bidding documents. 

Applicants must submit documentation 

to support their certifications that they 

have carefully considered and selected 

the most cost-effective bid with price 

being the primary factor considered, 

including the bid evaluation criteria, 

and the following documents (as 

applicable, and to the extent not already 

captured and stored as part of 

competitive bidding process): 

Completed bid evaluation worksheets or 

matrices; explanation for any 

disqualified bids; a list of people who 

evaluated the bids (along with their 

title/role/relationship to the applicant), 

memos, board minutes, or similar 

documents related to the service 

provider selection/award; copies of 

notices to winners; and any 

correspondence with the service 

providers prior to and during the 

competitive bidding, evaluation, and 

award phase of the process. 

(ii) Contracts or other documentation. 

All applicants must submit a contract or 

other documentation, as applicable, that 

clearly identifies the service provider(s) 

selected; costs for which support is 

being requested; and the term of the 

service agreement(s) if applicable (i.e., if 

services are not being provided on a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
4190 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

month-to-month basis). For services 

provided under contract, the applicant 

must submit a copy of the contract 

signed and dated after the Allowable 

Contract Date (ACD) by the applicant. If 

the services are provided by another 

legally binding agreement or on a 

month-to-month basis, the applicant 

must submit a bill, service offer, letter, 

or similar document from the service 

provider that provides the required 

information. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00684 Filed 1–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1