Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 8385 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 21–450; FCC 22–2; FRS 

71007] 

Affordable Connectivity Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission or FCC) seeks comment on 

proposals for increasing awareness of 

and participation in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program and for an 

enhanced affordable connectivity 

benefit for consumers in certain highcost areas. 

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before March 16, 2022 

and reply comments on or before April 

15, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: All filings should refer to 

WC Docket No. 21–450. Comments may 

be filed by any of the following 

methods: 

D Electronic filers: You may file 

comments electronically by accessing 

the Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) at https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. 

D Paper filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. Filings can be 

sent by commercial overnight courier, or 

by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail. Parties that need to submit 

confidential filings to the Commission 

should follow the instructions provided 

in the Commission’s March 31, 2020 

public notice regarding the procedures 

for submission of confidential materials. 

See FCC Provides Further Instructions 

Regarding Submission of Confidential 

Materials, Public Notice, DA 20–361, 35 

FCC Rcd 2973 (OMD, March 31, 2000), 

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/DA-20-361A1_Rcd.pdf. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020), 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/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. 

Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall 

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

with the Commission’s ex parte rules, 

47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex 

parte presentations must file a copy of 

any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation consists 

in whole or in part of the presentation 

of data or arguments already reflected in 

the presenter’s written comments, 

memoranda or other filings in the 

proceeding, the presenter may provide 

citations to such data or arguments in 

his or her prior comments, memoranda, 

or other filings (specifying the relevant 

page and/or paragraph numbers where 

such data or arguments can be found) in 

lieu of summarizing them in the 

memorandum. Documents shown or 

given to Commission staff during ex 

parte meetings are deemed to be written 

ex parte presentations and must be filed 

consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

Written ex parte presentations and 

memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

Electronic Comment Filing System and 

must be filed in their native format (e.g., 

.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 

Participants in this proceeding should 

familiarize themselves with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Wu, Attorney Advisor, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at eric.wu@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM) in WC Docket No. 21–450, 

FCC 22–2, adopted January 14, 2022, 

and released January 20, 2022. The full 

text of this document is available at 

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/FCC-22-2A1.pdf. The 

Report and Order that was adopted 

concurrently with this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is to be published 

elsewhere in the Federal Register. 

I. Introduction 

1. The Commission seeks comment on 

aspects of the Infrastructure Investment 

and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act) and 

proposals for increasing awareness of 

and participation in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. Specifically the 

Commission seeks comment on three 

sets of issues: (1) Structuring an 

outreach grant program; (2) establishing 

a potential pilot program focused on 

increasing the awareness and 

enrollment of eligible households 

participating in Federal Public Housing 

Assistance Programs in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program; and (3) 

implementing a mechanism for 

determining the application of the 

enhanced benefit for those serving highcost areas, as to be determined by the 

National Telecommunications 

Information Administration (NTIA). 

A. Outreach Grant Program 

2. Grant Program. The Affordable 

Connectivity Program will rely heavily 

on outreach efforts to make eligible 

households aware of and informed 

about the program. As evidenced in the 

record, certain segments of eligible 

households that would benefit from the 

program currently have low 

participation rates. The Infrastructure 

Act provides that the Commission may 

conduct various outreach efforts to 

encourage households to enroll in the 

Affordable Connectivity Program. The 

notice commencing this proceeding 

(referred to as ACP Public Notice) 

sought comment on the use of these 

statutorily authorized outreach tools, 

including the authority to provide 

grants to outreach partners. See Wireless 

Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on 

the Implementation of the Affordable 

Connectivity Program, Proposed Rule, 

88 FR 74036, 74056–57, paras. 108–112 

(Dec. 29, 2021) (ACP Public Notice). As 

further explained in the Report and 

Order accompanying this Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the 

Commission endeavors to use a variety 

of outreach tools permitted under the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
8386 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

statute to reach eligible consumers, 

including but not limited to people of 

color, persons with disabilities, persons 

who live in rural or Tribal areas, and 

others who are or have been historically 

underserved, marginalized, or adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality. In addition to the 

Commission’s own outreach efforts, 

outreach partners also play an important 

role in disseminating information about 

the Affordable Connectivity Program; 

and grant funding would help expand 

these outreach efforts and improve their 

effectiveness. 

3. Any agency establishing a grant 

program must do so in strict compliance 

with 2 CFR part 200 and other 

regulations and statutes applicable to 

Federal grants. However, while the 

Commission typically administers 

various types of financial assistance 

programs, it does not have experience 

with the unique statutory and regulatory 

requirements applicable to Federal grant 

programs. While the present record 

evinces strong support for the 

establishment of a grant program to 

promote awareness of and enrollment in 

the Affordable Connectivity Program 

and identifies several potential uses of 

outreach funds, the structure and 

implementation of such a program 

requires further exploration due to the 

unique statutory and regulatory 

requirements of the Federal grant 

program, which the Commission has not 

previously administered. Accordingly, 

the Commission seeks additional 

comment and feedback on structuring 

an outreach grant program to be 

managed by the Commission in support 

of consumer outreach concerning the 

Affordable Connectivity Program, as 

permitted in the Infrastructure Act. 

4. Several commenters support the 

establishment of an outreach grant 

program and offer various 

recommendations and relevant insights. 

For instance, EducationSuperHighway 

cites the Internal Revenue Service’s 

(IRS) Volunteer Income Tax Assistance 

(VITA) Program as a useful example that 

the Commission should look to as a 

model. Are there other analogous 

Federal outreach grant programs the 

Commission should consider as good 

models for establishing an outreach 

grant program besides those already 

identified in the record? The 

Commission especially encourages 

interested parties that have experience 

serving people of color, persons with 

disabilities, persons who live in rural or 

Tribal areas and others who are or have 

been historically underserved, 

marginalized, or adversely affected by 

persistent poverty or inequality, 

including State, local and Tribal 

governments and non-profit 

community-based organizations, to 

identify Federal grant programs that 

they have found to be helpful in those 

efforts. 

5. The Commission seeks comment on 

the duration and budget for an outreach 

grant funding program and proposes to 

create a multiple-year outreach grant 

program to align with the expectation 

that the Affordable Connectivity 

Program will extend for multiple years. 

Should this multi-year program require 

grantees to submit new applications 

periodically? Should the Commission 

instead consider establishing a onetime, limited duration outreach grant 

program? The Commission also seeks 

comment on the appropriate funding 

amount for a grant program. 

6. As reflected in the record, 

commenters support the Commission 

using a wide variety of outreach 

methods to take advantage of the 

statutory tools provided in the 

Infrastructure Act, including the 

establishment of an outreach grant 

program Are there particular types of 

outreach activities toward which the 

Commission should consider targeting 

outreach grant funds? Tech Goes Home 

emphasizes the importance of ensuring 

that adequate resources are provided to 

local outreach partners to prevent 

additional financial burdens. How much 

funding might grantees need in order to 

execute effective outreach efforts? The 

Commission seeks comment on 

estimated ranges of outreach grant 

awards, taking into consideration the 

range of costs that may be associated 

with outreach efforts, including those 

identified in the record, and on 

potential per-application funding caps. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

types of support and outreach material 

the Commission could provide to help 

outreach partners. Should the 

Commission provide technical 

assistance to grantees? What would be 

valuable technical assistance to grantees 

and how might technical assistance 

evolve over the duration of the grant 

program implementation? 

7. The Commission next seeks 

comment on entities that should be 

eligible for outreach grant funding. The 

record reflects support for relying on 

non-profit organizations and trusted 

community organizations as outreach 

partners for the Affordable Connectivity 

Program. AARP recommends that 

preference in grant awards should be 

given to organizations with established 

public interest credentials, preferably 

non-profit organizations, that have 

strong ties with key communities, 

including multi-cultural communities, 

and that grant applicants be required to 

provide examples of successful past 

outreach initiatives. The County of Los 

Angeles recommends that the 

Commission consider awarding grants 

to local governments, including 

counties, cities, and other entities, to 

further develop hyper-local campaigns, 

taking into consideration language 

needs, digital literacy, social media 

trends, relevant linear media, and other 

local factors. The Commission seeks 

comment on the types of entities that 

should be deemed eligible to receive 

potential outreach grant funding. If nonprofit organizations are eligible for 

funds, should eligibility be limited to 

non-profit organizations with tax 

exempt status under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)? 

Should State, local, and Tribal 

governments, including associated 

social service agencies, school districts, 

libraries, public housing authorities, 

State governmental entities that carry 

out workforce development programs, 

or State agencies that are responsible for 

administering or supervising adult 

education and literacy activities in the 

State, be eligible to receive grant funds? 

Are there other types of organizations 

that should be eligible? 

8. Grantees would be required to 

adhere to applicable Federal grantee 

regulations, including but not limited to 

taking all necessary affirmative steps to 

assure that minority businesses, 

women’s business enterprises, and labor 

surplus area firms are used when 

possible. See 2 CFR 200.321(a). Should 

use of outreach grant funds be limited 

to the named grant recipient, or should 

funding recipients be permitted to use 

subgrantees? Would allowing 

subgrantees significantly complicate the 

administration of an outreach grant 

program? Do other outreach grant 

programs typically permit subgrantees? 

Is there evidence that the funding of 

subgrantees can lead to improved, 

targeted outreach? 

9. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the application process, 

reporting, and other requirements for a 

potential outreach grant program. 

Interested parties should refer to the 

Uniform Administrative Requirements, 

Cost Requirements, and Audit 

Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 

CFR part 200, as well as the general 

reporting requirements in 2 CFR parts 

25 and 170. The National Digital 

Inclusion Alliance requests that the 

application process, reporting 

requirements, and financial 

requirements be minimally burdensome, 

to the extent possible and recommends 

that the Commission should ‘‘limit 

barriers to participation by small 

organizations that are trusted in their 

communities but have limited capacity 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 8387 

to participate in large Federal grant 

programs. The Commission invites 

commenters that have received Federal 

grants to address the grantee experience, 

including the grant application process, 

their use of grant funds, and best 

practices with respect to financial and 

reporting requirements for grant 

recipients, particularly for outreach 

grants. Should the application and 

selection process for a potential 

outreach grant program be competitive? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

how the Commission could structure an 

application and evaluation process to 

maximize the potential reach and 

effectiveness of outreach grant funding. 

10. An outreach grant program should 

maximize the number of eligible 

consumers participating in the 

Affordable Connectivity Program. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

awarding funding to applicants from a 

range of organization types and sizes 

(e.g., nationwide, regional, local, and 

smaller organizations) and ensuring 

diversity in geographic areas and 

intended outreach populations will best 

serve the underlying goal of increasing 

enrollment in the program. To do so 

effectively, the Commission has a strong 

interest in selecting grant applications 

that would target underserved 

populations and areas where the 

funding will have the most impact on 

increasing awareness of and, 

consequently, enrollment in the 

Affordable Connectivity Program. 

Should special consideration be given to 

prior experience working with or 

conducting outreach to such 

communities? The Commission seeks 

comment on what types of information 

should be sought from applicants in 

order to enable it to make informed 

decisions about the merits of the 

applications, including the reach of 

applicant organizations and the 

populations that they target. What 

metrics should the Commission take 

into account when considering 

applications and selecting grantees? 

11. The Commission seeks comment 

on establishing goals and metrics to 

track the outreach grant program’s 

performance of the goals of promoting 

awareness of the Affordable 

Connectivity Program and enrollment 

by eligible households. What metrics 

could track performance towards the 

goal of increasing enrollment? What 

other measurable goals and metrics 

would be appropriate for an outreach 

funding program? The Commission also 

seeks comment on appropriate 

performance metrics and milestones for 

potential grantees. Consistent with the 

statutory and regulatory requirements of 

grant programs, what factors could the 

Commission require grantees to track to 

help measure the real impact of 

supported outreach activities? What 

steps should the Commission take to 

aggregate and report the performance 

data received from the grantees? What 

would be appropriate periods of time for 

reporting (e.g., annually or semiannually) and assessing performance 

(e.g., one year or three years)? 

12. Any agency establishing a grant 

program must do so in compliance with 

2 CFR, subtitle A, Office of Management 

and Budget Guidance for Grants and 

Agreements, and other regulations and 

statutes applicable to Federal grants. 

Because the Commission has not 

previously implemented a grant 

program, however, it must adopt rules 

or delegate authority to the Wireline 

Competition Bureau and the Office of 

Managing Director in order to ensure 

compliance with the government-wide 

requirements applicable to grant 

programs, including 2 CFR parts 25, 

170, 175, 180, 182, and 200. Grant 

programs also must comply with 

requirements established in 

appropriations legislation. See, e.g., 

Public Law 116–260, 134 Stat. 1182, 

1439–1442 (Dec. 27, 2020) limitations 

on conference expenses, prohibition of 

whistleblowing confidentiality 

agreements, and restrictions on grants to 

entities with unpaid Federal tax 

liabilities or recent felony convictions). 

Parties are encouraged to comment on 

the Commission’s implementation of 

those requirements, especially in light 

of the objectives of the outreach grant 

program. 

B. Pilot Program Focused on Eligible 

Households Participating in Federal 

Public Housing Assistance Programs 

13. Under the supervision of the 

Department Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), city and State 

housing authorities administer Federal 

Public Housing Assistance (FPHA) 

programs, such as the housing choice 

voucher program (Section 8), projectbased rental assistance, and public 

housing, that benefit millions of 

Americans, including extremely lowincome families. Congress and the 

Commission have long recognized the 

importance of connecting these 

households to Lifeline communications 

services and, more recently, to services 

supported by the Emergency Broadband 

Benefit (EBB). The record demonstrates 

that large numbers of households in 

public housing would benefit from the 

Affordable Connectivity Program. 

14. In working to expand 

participation in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program, the Commission 

reaffirms the importance of connecting 

FPHA beneficiaries that are eligible for 

the Affordable Connectivity Program. 

Most of these households were eligible 

for the predecessor EBB Program, but 

only a small share of them enrolled in 

the EBB Program.1 Additional steps and 

innovative approaches are needed to 

help ensure that the Affordable 

Connectivity Program reaches the 

lowest-income Americans. To that end, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

launching a pilot program focused on 

expanding ACP participation by FPHA 

beneficiaries, including increasing 

awareness and assisting with navigating 

the enrollment process. Are there other 

obstacles to ACP enrollment for FPHA 

beneficiaries that should be addressed? 

15. The Infrastructure Act requires the 

Commission to collaborate with relevant 

Federal agencies and permits the 

Commission to engage in outreach 

efforts to encourage eligible households 

to enroll in the Affordable Connectivity 

Program. To this end, the Commission 

intends to use a wide range of available 

outreach tools to increase awareness of 

and participation in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. The record 

demonstrates that there is particular 

need for increased outreach to raise 

awareness of and participation in the 

Affordable Connectivity Program among 

low-income Americans who participate 

in the FPHA programs. Accordingly, the 

Commission is interested in exploring 

innovative ways that the Commission 

could partner with agencies that 

administer the FPHA programs on 

outreach and enrollment for the 

Affordable Connectivity Program. The 

Commission first seeks assistance in 

identifying the specific partner agencies 

for these efforts. In particular, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

types of collaborative cross-agency 

outreach that would be most effective at 

reaching this population. Are there 

examples of cross-agency marketing and 

outreach efforts that the Commission 

should look to as models for these 

efforts? Are there other models the 

Commission should look to in designing 

and implementing these cross-agency 

efforts? What sources of data should the 

Commission consider to identify 

specific locations where such crossagency outreach and marketing efforts 

are most likely to have a significant 

impact? 

16. The Commission also seeks 

comment on ways to make outreach 

through the partnerships as effective as 

possible by identifying and developing 

specific outreach and marketing efforts 

to be conducted through this pilot. Are 

there proven methods for 

communicating well with FPHA 

beneficiaries? What should the scope 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
8388 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

and duration of these efforts be? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether and how it can partner with 

third parties, including non-profit 

organizations, to help identify, develop, 

and carry out these marketing and 

outreach efforts. Should the 

Commission use Affordable 

Connectivity Program funding 

designated for outreach for these efforts? 

17. Heightening FPHA beneficiaries’ 

awareness of the Affordable 

Connectivity Program alone may not be 

enough to significantly increase their 

participation in the program, and 

accordingly, the Commission seeks 

comment on how to best assist FPHA 

households in accessing or navigating 

the program application process. The 

Commission expects that partner 

agencies have regular opportunities to 

interact in person with members of 

households eligible for the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. Should the 

Commission encourage partner agencies 

to establish, as part of this pilot, 

assistance locations on site where 

eligible household members can 

complete and submit applications for 

the Affordable Connectivity Program? 

What are the benefits of such 

arrangements? This effort could impose 

some additional burdens on the staff 

and resources of partner agencies; how 

can the Commission reduce such 

burdens? Should the Commission direct 

the Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC) to give those agencies 

access to the National Verifier (as 

defined in 47 CFR 54.1800(q)) in order 

to assist applicants who are physically 

present with completing and submitting 

applications for the Affordable 

Connectivity Program? 

18. The Commission proposes to 

require any representatives that are 

granted access to the National Verifier to 

register in the Representative 

Accountability Database, consistent 

with 47 CFR 54.1807(a), and to indicate 

that they are providing such assistance 

when they help consumers submit 

applications through the National 

Verifier. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal and on 

additional ways to help eligible FPHA 

households enroll. Are there other 

models for providing enrollment 

assistance the Commission should 

consider? 

19. The Commission seeks comment 

on how to measure the success of this 

pilot in increasing awareness of and 

enrollment in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program by participants in 

qualifying Federal Public Housing 

Assistance Programs. 

C. Implementation of the Enhanced 

Benefit for High-Cost Areas 

20. The Infrastructure Act provides 

for a separate enhanced affordable 

connectivity benefit for households that 

are served by providers in high-cost 

areas (as the term high-cost areas is 

defined in a separate section of the 

Infrastructure Act), with such areas to 

be identified by the National 

Telecommunications Information 

Administration (NTIA) in consultation 

with the Commission. 47 U.S.C. 

1752(a)(7)(B) (the ‘‘high-cost 

provision’’). Specifically, the 

Infrastructure Act establishes that a 

discount of up to $75 per month may be 

applied to a provider’s broadband 

service ‘‘upon a showing that the 

applicability of the lower [$30.00 

maximum benefit that applies 

elsewhere] to the provision of the 

affordable connectivity benefit by the 

provider would cause particularized 

economic hardship to the provider such 

that the provider may not be able to 

maintain the operation of part or all of 

its broadband network.’’ 47 U.S.C. 

1752(a)(7)(B). The ACP Public Notice 

sought comment on what the 

mechanism should be, and what a 

provider should be required to submit to 

show a ‘‘particularized economic 

hardship.’’ ACP Public Notice, paras. 

71–73. While the present record 

includes some comments on this highcost provision, the establishment of this 

mechanism requires further exploration 

given the interplay with other areas of 

the Infrastructure Act. including the 

definition of high-cost areas in 47 U.S.C. 

1702(a)(2). 

21. The high-cost areas provision 

incorporates the definition of ‘‘high-cost 

area’’ in 47 U.S.C. 1702(a)(2)(G)(i), as 

‘‘an unserved area in which the cost of 

building out broadband service is 

higher, as compared with the average 

cost of building out broadband service 

in unserved areas in the United States,’’ 

as determined by NTIA in consultation 

with the Commission. In turn, the term 

unserved area is defined as ‘‘an area in 

which not less than 80 percent of 

broadband-serviceable locations are 

unserved locations.’’ 47 U.S.C. 

1702(a)(2)(G)(ii). See also 47 U.S.C. 

1702(a)(2)(H) (defining ‘‘broadbandserviceable location’’); 47 U.S.C. 

1702(a)(1)(A) (defining ‘‘unserved 

location’’). The Commission seeks 

comment on how to interpret and apply 

the definition of ‘‘high-cost area’’ in 47 

U.S.C. 1702(a)(2)(G)(i) for purposes of 

the Affordable Connectivity Program, 

including whether such high-cost areas 

need to be unserved or if they can 

include high-cost areas that are served 

or unserved by an existing broadband 

provider. See also 47 U.S.C. 

1702(a)(2)(H) (defining ‘‘broadbandserviceable location’’); 47 U.S.C. 

1702(a)(1)(A) (defining ‘‘unserved 

location’’). 

22. The Commission seeks additional 

comment on the mechanism by which a 

provider can show particularized 

economic hardship. Should the 

Commission set clear standards or 

benchmarks for providers on what 

constitutes particularized economic 

hardship? In their comments on the ACP 

Public Notice, both NTCA and Conexon 

contend that a provider may face 

particularized economic hardship when 

the expected revenue from a substantial 

number of eligible households plus the 

high-cost universal service support it 

receives and the $30 monthly affordable 

connectivity benefit do not cover the 

cost of serving the designated high cost 

area, including depreciation expense, 

operating expense, the cost of capital, 

and other associated expenses, thus 

making it uneconomic to justify the 

incremental private investment needed 

to maintain the operation of that part of 

its network. Other commenters assert 

that commercial mobile carriers should 

be able to demonstrate that one or more 

cell sites may be decommissioned in the 

absence of a higher ACP benefit, or 

alternatively, would not be 

decommissioned if the higher ACP 

benefit is provided. The Commission 

seeks comment on the best method of 

determining whether providers face a 

particularized economic hardship. What 

constitutes a substantial number of 

eligible households? What 

considerations should be used to 

determine a provider’s expected 

revenues? When a provider has a 

depressed take-rate, how can the 

Commission determines the cause is 

because households in that area cannot 

afford internet? How can the 

Commission assess the amount of 

revenue that providers need to maintain 

the operation of networks serving 

households in the designated high-cost 

areas? The Commission also seeks 

comment on other standards and tests 

the Commission should consider to 

make this determination. 

23. The Commission also invites 

comment on the specific information 

that providers should provide in order 

to show particularized economic 

hardship. What information (such as 

revenues, cost models, capital 

expenditures, etc.) should a provider be 

required to submit to show that 

increased subsidies from the Affordable 

Connectivity Program are necessary for 

the provider to maintain its network? 

Alternatively, is there a level of poverty 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 8389 

that could be applied in all high-cost 

areas to determine where carriers face 

particularized economic hardship? 

What information is publicly available 

for the Commission to consider in 

making such a determination? Should 

the Commission take into consideration 

other subsidies and financial benefits 

used by providers in determining a 

provider’s request for high-cost 

treatment in the Affordable Connectivity 

Program? 

24. The ACP Public Notice sought 

comment on who should decide 

whether the provider met the standard 

for this enhanced benefit and the 

Commission seeks further comment on 

how this review process should be 

implemented. What else should the 

Commission consider when setting up 

the process for making determinations 

about a household’s eligibility to receive 

this enhanced subsidy? 

25. The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to advance digital 

equity for all, including people of color, 

persons with disabilities, persons who 

live in rural or Tribal areas, and others 

who are or have been historically 

underserved, marginalized, or adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality, invites comment on any 

equity-related considerations and 

benefits (if any) that may be associated 

with the proposals and issues discussed 

herein. See Executive Order on 

Advancing Racial Equity and Support 

for Underserved Communities Through 

the Federal Government, E.O. No. 

13985, 86 FR 7009 (Jan. 20, 2021). 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 

comment on how these 

26. proposals may promote or inhibit 

advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, 

and accessibility, as well the scope of 

the Commission’s relevant legal 

authority. 

II. Procedural Matters 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

27. This document contains proposed 

new information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.). In addition, pursuant to 

the Small Business Paperwork Relief 

Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it might 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

28. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 

U.S.C. 603, the Commission has 

prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities of 

the policies and rules proposed in the 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM). Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the Further Notice. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Further Notice, including the IRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

29. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules. The FNPRM seeks 

comment on a multi-year grant program 

to support the efforts of outreach 

partners to inform potentially eligible 

households about the Affordable 

Connectivity Program and encourage 

them to enroll in the program, including 

the types of entities that could be 

eligible to apply for and receive grants, 

potentially including non-profit 

organizations, State, local, and Tribal 

governments, social service agencies, 

school districts, and libraries. The 

FNPRM also proposes and seeks 

comment on a pilot program focused on 

expanding ACP participation by 

beneficiaries of Federal Public Housing 

Assistance (FPHA) programs (housing 

choice voucher program (Section 8), 

project-based rental assistance, and 

public housing) by increasing their 

awareness of the program and helping 

them enroll, to be implemented in 

conjunction with agencies that 

administer the FPHA programs. In 

addition, the FNPRM seeks comment on 

rules to implement the enhanced 

affordable connectivity benefit of up to 

$75.00 per month that the Infrastructure 

Act provides to eligible households for 

broadband service offered by 

participating providers in certain highcost areas, including the definition and 

identification of high-cost areas; the 

standards for a participating provider’s 

showing of particularized economic 

hardship, the information it would need 

to submit (such as revenues, cost 

models, and capital expenditures), and 

the process of reviewing such showings. 

30. Legal Basis. The proposed actions 

are authorized pursuant to the 

Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. V, section 

60502(a)(3)(B), 47 U.S.C. 1752(a)(7)(B) 

and (b)(10)(C). 

31. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply. The small 

entities that might be eligible to apply 

for grants under the proposed outreach 

grant program include approximately 

49,000 small governmental jurisdictions 

and 572,000 small non-profit 

organizations, based on SBA definitions 

and data from the U.S. Census Bureau 

and other sources. A small subset of 

these entities might be eligible to seek 

to participate in the pilot program 

focused on public housing beneficiaries. 

The proposed rules concerning the 

enhanced affordable connectivity 

benefit could apply to approximately 

3,000 wired broadband internet access 

service providers and 1,000 wireless 

broadband internet access service 

providers, if such providers opted to 

participate in the program and seeks to 

offer the enhanced benefit in high-cost 

areas where they can show 

particularized economic hardship. 

32. Description of Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements. The 

Commission anticipates that any grantrelated rules that it adopts, following 

the Uniform Guidance that applies to all 

Federal agencies (potentially with 

additional implementation details), see 

79 FR 75872 (Dec. 19, 2014), will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Providers of wireline or wireless 

broadband internet access services, 

including small businesses, that 

voluntarily seek to qualify for the 

enhanced benefit might need to report 

and retain certain data about their 

operations. The precise nature of the 

necessary data cannot be ascertained at 

this time and the cost of compliance 

cannot be quantified, but any 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

would apply only to those providers 

that voluntarily participate and opt to 

seek the enhanced benefit, and the 

Commission believes that such 

providers will likely enjoy benefits that 

far exceed the reporting and 

recordkeeping costs. 

33. Steps Taken To Minimize 

Significant Impact on Small Entities, 

and Significant Alternatives Considered. 

The rules and requirements that the 

Commission ultimately adopts to 

implement the enhanced benefit in 

high-cost areas will be explicitly 

designed to accommodate and provide 

structure for the particularized 

showings of economic hardship that all 

applicants, including small entities, will 

need to submit. The particularized 

nature of each of these showings will 

inherently accommodate the particular 

circumstances of each applicant, 

including any small entity that chooses 

to apply for the benefit. The 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
8390 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Commission is hopeful that the 

comments it receives will further 

address matters impacting small entities 

and will include information, data and 

analyses relating to these matters. 

34. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With, the 

Commission’s Proposals: None. 

Ordering Clause 

35. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

Section 904 of Division N, Title IX of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2021, Public Law 116–260, 134 Stat. 

1182, as amended by Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 

117–58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021), this 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

is adopted. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54 

Communications common carriers, 

Health facilities, Infants and children, 

internet, Libraries, Puerto Rico, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Schools, 

Telecommunications, Telephone, Virgin 

Islands. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02908 Filed 2–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2