32692 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation 

* Elevation in feet (NGVD) 

+ Elevation in feet (NAVD) 

# Depth in feet above 

ground 

∧Elevation in meters 

(MSL) 

Communities affected 

Effective Modified 

Maps are available for inspection at 215 South Mill Street, Louisville, OH 44641. 

City of Massillon 

Maps are available for inspection at 151 Lincolnway East, Massillon, OH 44646. 

City of North Canton 

Maps are available for inspection at 220 West Maple Street, North Canton, OH 44720. 

Unincorporated Areas of Stark County 

Maps are available for inspection at 110 Central Plaza South, Canton, OH 44702. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: May 14, 2010. 

Sandra K. Knight, 

Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administrator, Mitigation, Department of 

Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13859 Filed 6–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[CC Docket No. 02–6; FCC 09–105] 

Schools and Libraries Universal 

Service Support Mechanism 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) addresses matters related 

to the eligibility of products and 

services under the schools and libraries 

universal service support mechanism, 

also known as the E-rate program. 

Specifically, in this Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we 

propose that the following services 

should not be eligible for funding under 

the E-rate program—separately priced 

firewall services, anti-virus/anti-spam 

software, scheduling services, wireless 

Internet access applications, and web 

hosting. We propose to revise the 

Commission’s rules to establish that the 

Commission should not be required to 

list individual products and services 

(e.g., voice mail) in the rules, but that 

such products and services will be 

listed in the Eligible Services List (ESL). 

We propose to require the Universal 

Service Administrative Company 

(USAC) to submit any proposed changes 

to the ESL to the Commission no later 

than March 30th of each year. Finally, 

we propose to eliminate the requirement 

that the ESL be released by public 

notice. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rules 

are due on or before July 9, 2010 and 

reply comments are due on or before 

July 26, 2010. Written comments on the 

Paperwork Reduction Act proposed 

information collection requirements 

should be submitted on or before 

August 9, 2010. If you anticipate that 

you will be submitting comments, but 

find it difficult to do so within the 

period of time allowed by this notice, 

you should advise the contact listed 

below as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CC Docket No. 02–6, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

• In addition to filing comments with 

the Secretary, a copy of any comments 

on the Paperwork Reduction Act 

information collection requirements 

contained herein should be submitted to 

the Federal Communications 

Commission via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov 

and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 

Management and Budget, via e-mail to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via 

fax at 202–395–5167. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara 

Voth, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, (202) 418–7400 or TTY: (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 

02–6, FCC 09–105, adopted December 1, 

2009, and released December 2, 2009. 

The complete text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

document may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. 

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

I. Introduction 

1. In this FNPRM, we seek comment 

on whether particular services should 

be designated as eligible for E-rate 

support. Specifically, we tentatively 

conclude that the Eligible Services List 

(ESL) should not include separately 

priced firewall services, anti-virus/antispam software, scheduling services, 

wireless Internet access applications, 

and web hosting should not be eligible 

for funding under the E-rate program. 

Alternatively, we propose that web 

hosting should be eligible for E-rate 

program funds as a Priority 2 service. 

We also propose to change our rules to 

establish that the Commission no longer 

needs to list individual products and 

services in the rules, but that such 

products and services will be listed in 

the ESL. We propose to change our rules 

to require the Universal Service 

Administrative Company (USAC) to 

submit any proposed changes to the ESL 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32693 

to the Commission no later than March 

30th of each year. Finally, we 

tentatively conclude to revise our rules 

to eliminate the requirement that the 

ESL be released by public notice. 

II. Background 

2. Under the E-rate program, eligible 

schools, libraries, and consortia that 

include eligible schools and libraries 

may receive discounts for eligible 

telecommunications services, Internet 

access, and internal connections. 

Section 254 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended (the Act), gives the 

Commission the authority to designate 

‘‘telecommunications services’’ and 

certain additional services eligible for 

support under the E-rate program. The 

Commission may also designate services 

eligible for E-rate support as part of its 

authority to enhance, to the extent 

technically feasible and economically 

reasonable, access to advanced 

telecommunications and information 

services for all public and non-profit 

elementary and secondary school 

classrooms and libraries. 

3. Since the initial implementation of 

the E-rate program in 1998, and 

consistent with the Commission’s rules 

and requirements, USAC has developed 

procedures and guidelines to ensure 

that E-rate funding is provided only for 

eligible services. Initially, the 

Commission directed USAC, in 

consultation with the Commission, to 

determine whether particular services 

fell within the eligibility criteria 

established under the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and policies. USAC 

began to update and post to its Web site 

on an annual basis a list of services and 

products eligible to receive discounts 

under the E-rate program, now known 

as the ESL. In consultation with the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), 

USAC updated the list to reflect any 

changes in rules that had occurred 

during the previous year and to address 

issues that arose in the application 

review process. 

4. On December 23, 2003, the 

Commission adopted section 54.522 of 

its rules, formalizing the process for 

updating the ESL for the E-rate program. 

Specifically, under section 54.522 of the 

Commission’s rules, the Commission 

must seek comment on USAC’s 

proposed ESL and issue a public notice 

attaching the final ESL for the upcoming 

funding year at least 60 days prior to the 

opening of the application funding 

window for the E-rate program. In its 

current form, the ESL is divided into 

five main categories— 

telecommunications service, Internet 

access, internal connections, basic 

maintenance of internal connections, 

and miscellaneous. 

5. In the ESL NPRM (73 FR 48352, 

August 19, 2008), released in July 2008, 

the Commission sought comment on 

issues related to eligible services that 

had been raised by commenters but had 

not yet been resolved through the ESL 

public notice and revision process. The 

Commission also sought comment on 

which rules, if any, would need to be 

amended to implement any changes 

made as a result of the ESL NPRM. 

Comments on the ESL NPRM were due 

on September 18, 2008, and reply 

comments were due on October 3, 2008. 

III. Discussion 

A. Services 

6. In this FNPRM, we seek comment 

on the tentative conclusions we make 

regarding services discussed in the ESL 

NPRM that have not been addressed 

already. We tentatively conclude that 

separately priced firewall services, antivirus and anti-spam software, 

teleconferencing scheduling services, 

and wireless Internet access 

applications, should not be added to the 

ESL. Additionally, we tentatively 

conclude that web hosting should not be 

eligible for funding under the E-rate 

program, or, alternatively, should only 

be eligible for E-rate program funds as 

a Priority 2 service. 

7. Firewall. We tentatively conclude 

that we should decline to add separately 

priced firewall services to the ESL. In 

the 2007 ESL, the Commission clarified 

that only basic firewall services that are 

provided as a standard component of a 

vendor’s Internet access service are 

eligible for E-rate program discounts. 

The E-rate program already funds basic 

firewall services, giving applicants a 

basic level of protection. We tentatively 

conclude that the inclusion of 

separately priced firewall services is not 

essential and may have an adverse effect 

on funds available for other already 

eligible services. We seek comment on 

this tentative conclusion and also ask 

that commenters provide examples of 

how separately priced firewalls are used 

by schools and libraries so that we can 

determine whether we should 

reexamine our tentative conclusion. We 

also seek comment on a suggested 

updated definition of basic firewall 

services and whether that would 

provide better guidance to applicants on 

what types of basic firewall services are 

eligible for E-rate funding. 

8. Anti-Virus/Anti-Spam Software. 

We tentatively conclude that we should 

not add anti-virus and anti-spam 

software to the ESL and seek comment 

on this tentative conclusion. Anti-virus 

and anti-spam software is not an 

Internet access service itself but is a 

separate software application designed 

to enhance the operation of Internet 

access service. Only a few categories of 

software are eligible for E-rate funding, 

however, including operating system 

software, e-mail software, and software 

for a server-based, shared voice mail 

system. We tentatively conclude that 

anti-virus and anti-spam software 

should not be added to the list of 

eligible software under internal 

connections because this software does 

not fit into the categories of software 

that are currently on the ESL. Even if 

anti-virus and anti-spam software are 

generally considered necessary for the 

operation of e-mail, we believe that such 

products should not be funded because 

their addition to the ESL may have an 

adverse affect on the funds available for 

other services. We seek comment on 

these tentative conclusions. 

9. Scheduling Services. We tentatively 

conclude that we should not adopt 

scheduling services as eligible for E-rate 

funding. As explained above, only 

operating system software, e-mail 

software, and software for a serverbased, shared voice mail system have 

been approved for E-rate funding. 

Scheduling software allows schools and 

libraries to use video teleconferencing 

for distance learning by coordinating 

between locations. We believe that 

scheduling services, while potentially 

useful for schools and libraries, does not 

fit into the categories of software that 

are currently on the ESL. We also find 

that schools and libraries are able to use 

video teleconferencing for distance 

learning without scheduling services 

and therefore such services are not 

essential. The E-rate program is 

operated with a finite amount of 

funding and we tentatively conclude 

that funds should not be shifted from 

necessary components to add 

scheduling services to the program. We 

seek comment on this tentative 

conclusion. 

10. Web Hosting. Web hosting, as an 

unbundled Internet access service, was 

added to the ESL in October 2003, for 

funding year 2004. In funding year 

2004, Web hosting was described as an 

Internet service provided by an Internet 

service provider that will host a school 

or library’s Web site (http:// 

www.schoolname.org) as part of a 

bundled service offering, or as an 

optional service. Because Web hosting is 

listed in the ESL as Internet access, it is 

funded under the E-rate program as a 

Priority 1 service. Although Web 

hosting has been included as part of 

Internet access, we now seek comment 

on whether Web hosting should 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
32694 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

continue to be eligible for funding under 

the category of Priority 1 Internet access. 

We tentatively conclude that Web 

hosting should not be eligible for 

funding under the E-rate program, or, 

alternatively, should only be eligible for 

E-rate program funds as a Priority 2 

service. We tentatively conclude that we 

should remove Web hosting from the 

ESL because, while many school 

districts find Web hosting to be a useful 

way to post information for parents and 

the community, we do not believe it is 

essential to the educational purposes of 

schools and libraries. We seek comment 

on this tentative conclusion. 

11. If we decide to retain Web hosting 

on the ESL, we tentatively conclude that 

Web hosting is not Internet access or an 

information service and it should move 

to Priority 2. In funding year 2004, there 

was a presumption in the ESL 

description of Web hosting that Web 

hosting was to be provided by an 

Internet service provider. In today’s 

marketplace, Web hosting vendors are 

not necessarily Internet service 

providers, and although a basic Web 

hosting service is comprised of the 

physical rental of space on a vendor’s 

server for the hosting of an applicant’s 

Web site, Web hosting service has 

greatly evolved with a variety of 

optional features. To the extent the 

Commission adopts the tentative 

conclusion that Web hosting service is 

eligible as a Priority 2 service, what 

aspects of this service should be eligible 

and how should an eligible Priority 2 

Web hosting service be described in the 

ESL? Also, should contracts between 

Web hosting vendors and applicants be 

itemized to show the pricing of E-rate 

eligible features and elements of Web 

hosting? 

12. Wireless Internet Access 

Applications. We tentatively conclude 

that certain wireless Internet access 

applications including, but not limited 

to, services that could be used on school 

buses to transmit emergency 

information, track students, and locate 

buses with GPS technology, are 

ineligible for E-rate support. We seek 

comment on this tentative conclusion. 

To the extent commenters support Erate funding on these services we seek 

comment on how or why these 

applications would serve an educational 

purpose. Like scheduling software, we 

find that wireless Internet access 

applications are non-essential services 

and we tentatively conclude that we 

should not add them to the ESL at this 

time. We seek comment on this tentative 

conclusion. 

B. Administrative Matters Related to the 

ESL 

13. Commission’s Rules Regarding 

Eligible Services. Currently, sections 

54.502 and 54.503 of the Commission’s 

rules state that telecommunications 

carriers may provide 

telecommunications, Internet access, 

and internal connections; section 54.506 

defines internal connections; section 

54.517 provides that nontelecommunications carriers may 

provide voice mail, Internet access, and 

internal connections; and section 54.518 

describes the wide area network 

services that will be supported. We 

tentatively conclude that the rules 

should be restructured so that all of the 

provisions relating to eligible services 

be located in the same place and seek 

comment on this tentative conclusion. 

We seek comment on the proposed 

restructure of these rules. 

14. The Commission rules that 

address the services that are eligible for 

E-rate support generally provide that 

telecommunications, Internet access, 

internal connections, and basic 

maintenance are eligible for E-rate 

support. They also, however, refer to 

specific services such as voice mail or 

wide area network. The ESL also lists 

specific services that are eligible for Erate support, e.g., Centrex is listed as a 

supported service under the 

telecommunications services category. 

Applicants may be confused by the 

differences between the Commission’s 

rules and the ESL. Thus, we propose 

that the rules regarding eligible services 

should make clear that the specific 

services eligible for support under the 

general categories of 

telecommunications, Internet access, 

and internal connections will be listed 

in the ESL and not specifically named 

in the Commission’s rules. We 

tentatively conclude that any reference 

to specific services or products in the 

rules should be removed and instead the 

rules should state that all products and 

services eligible for E-rate support will 

be listed in the ESL. We seek comment 

on this tentative conclusion. 

15. Section 54.522 of the 

Commission’s rules provides a process 

by which the ESL can be changed from 

funding year to funding year. The 

process requires USAC to submit any 

proposed changes to the ESL for the 

following funding year by June 30th of 

each year to the Commission so that the 

Commission can release such proposals 

by public notice for comment. Any final 

changes to the ESL for the following 

funding year are voted on and released 

after this comment period. We find that 

this process provides the public with 

ample notice of any potential changes to 

the eligibility status of certain products 

and services. Requiring the Commission 

to change its rules with the addition of 

each new service or change to the ESL 

does not enable USAC and Commission 

to keep up with the rapidly changing 

needs of schools and libraries to access 

telecommunications and advanced 

services. We find that our tentative 

conclusion to remove from our rules all 

references to specific services eligible 

for support will provide the 

Commission with the flexibility to make 

E-rate discounts available on new and 

improved products and services in a 

fluid yet predictable environment. We 

seek comment on the reasons we have 

provided for our tentative conclusion. 

We also seek comment on any 

alternative proposals or ideas that 

would better inform the public of the 

services that are eligible for E-rate 

support. 

16. Because we tentatively conclude 

that reference to specific services should 

not be made in the rules, we propose to 

remove section 54.518 from our rules. 

Section 54.518 states that applicants 

cannot receive E-rate support to build or 

purchase a WAN. Instead, the program’s 

requirements pertaining to WANs will 

be included in the ESL. We emphasize 

that this proposal will not change the 

current eligibility of WANs. We seek 

comment on our tentative conclusion to 

delete this rule. 

17. In addition, we tentatively 

conclude that we should change the 

name of the category of supported 

services currently called ‘‘Internet 

access’’ to ‘‘Internet access and 

information services’’ in the ESL. We 

have defined Internet access as ‘‘basic 

conduit access to the Internet.’’ The 

current ESL, however, also includes email under the category of ‘‘Internet 

access.’’ While e-mail uses the Internet, 

it is not, itself, Internet access. As such, 

we believe including ‘‘information 

services’’ in the descriptive title of the 

category would more accurately reflect 

the type of services eligible. We seek 

comment on this proposed change. 

18. Commission’s Rules Regarding the 

ESL Process. We tentatively conclude 

that we should change the process by 

which the Commission adopts changes 

to the ESL. First, we tentatively 

conclude that USAC should file its 

proposed ESL with the Commission no 

later than March 30th each year. Section 

54.522 of the Commission’s rules 

requires USAC to submit a draft ESL 

with any proposed changes to the 

Commission by June 30th of each year. 

The Commission then releases a public 

notice seeking comment on USAC’s 

proposed ESL. Section 54.522 of the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32695 

Commission’s rules requires the 

Commission to release the final ESL at 

least 60 days prior to the opening of the 

application filing window for the next 

E-rate funding year. For the last two 

years, USAC has opened the application 

filing window in early November for 

funding year 2008 and early December 

for funding year 2009. The current rule, 

therefore, allows approximately three 

months for the Commission to release 

the proposed draft of the ESL, for the 

public to review and comment on the 

draft, and for the Commission to release 

the final ESL. We have found that we 

have not had enough time to complete 

all of the steps required by the rule and 

release the final ESL 60 days prior to the 

opening of the application filing 

window. Indeed, on at least three prior 

occasions, as we have done this year, we 

have waived section 54.522 to allow 

USAC to open the application filing 

window without having to wait 60 days 

from the release of the final ESL. We 

find that requiring USAC to submit the 

proposed ESL earlier will allow 

additional time for the Commission to 

review the proposal and to review and 

analyze public comment on the 

proposed ESL. In the alternative, we 

seek comment from the public on any 

other methods by which we can 

streamline this process and keep it one 

that allows for ample public notice and 

opportunities for public participation. 

19. We also tentatively conclude that 

we should change the provision in 

section 54.522 of the Commission’s 

rules that requires the Commission to 

issue a public notice seeking comment 

on USAC’s proposed annual changes to 

the ESL and another public notice 

announcing the release of the final ESL 

for the upcoming funding year. 

Specifically, we believe the rules should 

be changed to remove the requirement 

that the ESL be released as a public 

notice by the Commission. This will 

provide the Commission with flexibility 

to provide, for example, more detailed 

explanations regarding changes to the 

ESL in an order when it deems 

necessary. We seek comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

Procedural Matters 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

20. The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 603, requires that an 

agency prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis for notice-and-comment 

rulemaking proceedings, unless the 

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not, 

if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 

605(b). The RFA generally defines 

‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ 5 U.S.C. 

601(6). In addition, the term ‘‘small 

business’’ has the same meaning as the 

term ‘‘small business concern’’ under the 

Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A 

‘‘small business concern’’ is one which: 

(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). 

15 U.S.C. 632. 

21. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission 

has prepared this Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

small entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in the 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 

NPRM. The Commission will send a 

copy of this FNPRM, including this 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA). In addition, the FNPRM (or 

summary thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

22. The Commission is required by 

section 254 of the Act to promulgate 

rules to implement the universal service 

provisions of section 254. On May 8, 

1997, the Commission adopted rules to 

reform its system of universal service 

support mechanisms so that universal 

service is preserved and advanced as 

markets move toward competition. 

Specifically, under the schools and 

libraries universal service support 

mechanism, also known as the E-rate 

program, eligible schools, libraries, and 

consortia that include eligible schools 

and libraries may receive discounts for 

eligible telecommunications services, 

Internet access, and internal 

connections. Since the initial 

implementation of the E-rate program, 

USAC has developed various 

procedures and guidelines, consistent 

with the Commission’s rules and 

requirements, to ensure that funding is 

provided only for eligible services. 

23. Pursuant to the Commission’s 

rules, the Commission released the 

Public Notice seeking comment on 

USAC’s proposed ESL for Funding Year 

2010. The ESL indicates whether 

specific products or services are eligible 

for discounts under the E-rate program. 

In 2009 ESL Public Notice, we noted 

that this proceeding is limited to 

determining what services are eligible 

under the Commission’s current rules 

and is generally not intended to be a 

vehicle for changing any eligibility 

rules. We also noted, however, that the 

Commission sought comment on 

various issues including the eligibility 

of specific services in the ESL NPRM 

released last year and invited parties 

that wanted their ESL NPRM comments 

considered in response to the public 

notice to refile those comments. 

24. In the FNPRM, we seek comment 

on the Commission’s tentative 

conclusion that the ESL should not add 

separately-priced firewall services, antivirus/anti-spam software, scheduling 

services, and wireless Internet access 

applications. The Commission agrees 

with commenters that these services are 

either not eligible under the Act or are 

not essential to furthering the goals and 

purposes of the E-rate program. Further, 

we agree with commenters that paying 

for the discount on these services would 

have an adverse effect on services that 

are already being funded. We also seek 

comment on the Commission’s tentative 

conclusion that Web hosting should not 

be eligible for funding under the E-rate 

program, or, alternatively, should only 

be eligible for E-rate program funds as 

a Priority 2 service. The Commission 

does not believe that Web hosting is 

essential to the educational purposes of 

schools and libraries. We also seek 

comment on changes to our rules to 

establish that specific eligible products 

and services should be listed in the ESL 

as opposed to being listed individually 

in the rules. We seek comment on our 

tentative conclusions on the process for 

developing the ESL, including requiring 

the Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC) to submit any 

proposed changes to the ESL to the 

Commission no later than March 30th of 

each year. Finally, we seek comment on 

the Commission’s tentative conclusion 

to revise our rules to eliminate the 

requirement that the ESL be released by 

public notice, which would provide the 

Commission the flexibility to release the 

ESL by order. All of these 

administrative changes would bring 

clarity and transparency to the ESL 

process and would benefit all 

participants in the program. 

2. Legal Basis 

25. The legal basis for the FNPRM is 

contained in sections 1 through 4, 201 

through 205, 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 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
32696 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and section 1.411 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.411. 

3. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which 

Rules May Apply 

26. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ 

as having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ 

has the same meaning as the term ‘‘small 

business concern’’ under the Small 

Business Act. A small business concern 

is one that: (1) Is independently owned 

and operated; (2) is not dominant in its 

field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

SBA. Nationwide, there are a total of 

approximately 22.4 million small 

businesses, according to SBA data. A 

small organization is generally ‘‘any notfor-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field.’’ 

Nationwide, as of 2002, there were 

approximately 1.6 million small 

organizations. ‘‘Small governmental 

jurisdiction’’ generally means 

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than 50,000.’’ Census Bureau data 

for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 

local governmental jurisdictions in the 

United States. We estimate that, of this 

total, 84,377 entities were ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we 

estimate that most governmental 

jurisdictions are small. 

27. Small entities potentially affected 

by the proposals herein include eligible 

schools and libraries and the eligible 

service providers offering them 

discounted services, including 

telecommunications service providers, 

Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and 

vendors of the services and equipment 

used for internal connections. 

28. Schools. As noted, ‘‘small entity’’ 

includes non-profit and small 

government entities. Under the schools 

and libraries universal service support 

mechanism, which provides support for 

elementary and secondary schools, an 

elementary school is generally ‘‘a nonprofit institutional day or residential 

school that provides elementary 

education, as determined under state 

law.’’ A secondary school is generally 

defined as ‘‘a non-profit institutional 

day or residential school that provides 

secondary education, as determined 

under state law,’’ and not offering 

education beyond grade 12. For-profit 

schools, and schools and libraries with 

endowments in excess of $50,000,000, 

are not eligible to receive discounts 

under the program. Certain other 

statutory definitions apply as well. The 

SBA has defined for-profit, elementary 

and secondary schools having $7 

million or less in annual receipts as 

small entities. In funding year 2007 

approximately 105,500 schools received 

funding under the schools and libraries 

universal service mechanism. Although 

we are unable to estimate with precision 

the number of these entities that would 

qualify as small entities under SBA’s 

size standard, we estimate that fewer 

than 105,500 schools might be affected 

annually by our action, under current 

operation of the program. 

29. Libraries. As noted, ‘‘small entity’’ 

includes non-profit and small 

government entities. Under the schools 

and libraries universal service support 

mechanism, which provides support for 

libraries, the definition of library 

includes public libraries, public 

elementary school or secondary school 

libraries, academic libraries, certain 

research libraries and private libraries 

where the state has determined that the 

library should be considered a library 

for purposes of this definition. Forprofit libraries are not eligible to receive 

discounts under the program, nor are 

libraries whose budgets are not 

completely separate from any schools. 

Certain other statutory definitions apply 

as well. The SBA has defined for-profit 

libraries having $7 million or less in 

annual receipts as small entities. In 

funding year 2007 approximately 10,950 

libraries received funding under the 

schools and libraries universal service 

mechanism. Although we are unable to 

estimate with precision the number of 

these entities that would qualify as 

small entities under SBA’s size 

standard, we estimate that fewer than 

10,950 libraries might be affected 

annually by our action, under current 

operation of the program. 

30. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission 

nor the SBA has developed a size 

standard for small incumbent local 

exchange services. The closest size 

standard under SBA rules is for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. Under 

that size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, 1,311 

incumbent carriers reported that they 

were engaged in the provision of local 

exchange services. Of these 1,311 

carriers, an estimated 1,024 have 1,500 

or fewer employees and 287 have more 

than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses that may be 

affected by the rules and policies 

adopted herein. 

31. We have included small 

incumbent local exchange carriers in 

this RFA analysis. A ‘‘small business’’ 

under the RFA is one that, inter alia, 

meets the pertinent small business size 

standard (e.g., a telephone 

communications business having 1,500 

or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not 

dominant in its field of operation.’’ The 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, 

for RFA purposes, small incumbent 

local exchange carriers are not dominant 

in their field of operation because any 

such dominance is not ‘‘national’’ in 

scope. We have therefore included small 

incumbent carriers in this RFA analysis, 

although we emphasize that this RFA 

action has no effect on the 

Commission’s analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

32. Interexchange Carriers. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a definition of small entities 

specifically applicable to providers of 

interexchange services (IXCs). The 

closest applicable definition under the 

SBA rules is for wired 

telecommunications carriers. This 

provides that a wired 

telecommunications carrier is a small 

entity if it employs no more than 1,500 

employees. According to the 

Commission’s 2008 Trends Report, 300 

companies reported that they were 

engaged in the provision of 

interexchange services. Of these 300 

IXCs, an estimated 268 have 1,500 or 

few employees and 32 have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of interexchange services are 

small businesses that may be affected by 

the rules and policies adopted herein. 

33. Competitive Access Providers. 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a definition of small 

entities specifically applicable to 

competitive access services providers 

(CAPs). The closest applicable 

definition under the SBA rules is for 

wired telecommunications carriers. This 

provides that a wired 

telecommunications carrier is a small 

entity if it employs no more than 1,500 

employees. According to the 2008 

Trends Report, 1,005 CAPs and 

competitive local exchange carriers 

(competitive LECs) reported that they 

were engaged in the provision of 

competitive local exchange services. Of 

these 1,005 CAPs and competitive LECs, 

an estimated 918 have 1,500 or few 

employees and 87 have more than 1,500 

employees. Consequently, the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32697 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of competitive exchange 

services are small businesses that may 

be affected by the rules and policies 

adopted herein. 

34. Wireless Telecommunications. 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a definition of small 

entities specifically for wireless 

telephony. The closest definition is the 

SBA definition for wireless 

telecommunications (except satellite). 

Under this definition, a cellular licensee 

is a small entity if it employs no more 

than 1,500 employees. According to the 

2008 Trends Report, 434 providers 

classified themselves as providers of 

wireless telephony, including cellular 

telecommunications, Personal 

Communications Service, and 

Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 

Telephony Carriers. Of these 437 

wireless telephony providers, an 

estimated 222 have 1,500 or few 

employees and 212 have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that more than 

half of the providers of wireless 

telephony services are small businesses 

that may be affected by the rules and 

policies adopted herein. 

35. Other Wireless Services. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a definition of small entities 

specifically applicable to wireless 

services other than wireless telephony. 

The closest applicable definition under 

the SBA rules is again that of wireless 

telecommunications (except satellite), 

under which a service provider is a 

small entity if it employs no more than 

1,500 employees. According to the 2008 

Trends Report, 69 providers classified 

themselves as wireless data carriers or 

other mobile service providers. Of these 

69 providers, an estimated 65 have 

1,500 or few employees and 4 have 

more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

wireless services other than wireless 

telephony are small businesses that may 

be affected by the rules and policies 

adopted herein. 

36. Paging and Messaging Service 

Providers. In the Paging Third Report 

and Order, we developed a small 

business size standard for ‘‘small 

businesses’’ and ‘‘very small businesses’’ 

for purposes of determining their 

eligibility for special provisions such as 

bidding credits and installment 

payments. A ‘‘small business’’ is an 

entity that, together with its affiliates 

and controlling principals, has average 

gross revenues not exceeding $15 

million for the preceding three years. 

Additionally, a ‘‘very small business’’ is 

an entity that, together with its affiliates 

and controlling principals, has average 

gross revenues that are not more than $3 

million for the preceding three years. 

An auction of Metropolitan Economic 

Area licenses commenced on February 

24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. 

Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were 

sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming 

small business status won. At present, 

there are approximately 24,000 PrivatePaging site-specific licenses and 74,000 

Common Carrier Paging licenses. 

According to Commission data, 281 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of paging services, 

messaging services, or other mobile 

services. Of those, the Commission 

estimates that 279 are small, under the 

SBA approved small business size 

standard. 

37. Internet Service Providers. Under 

the category of Internet service provider, 

a small business is one having annual 

receipts of $23 million or less. 

According to SBA data, there are a total 

of 2,829 firms with annual receipts of 

less than $10 million, and an additional 

111 firms with annual receipts of $10 

million or more. Thus, the number of 

On-line Information Services firms that 

are small under the SBA’s $18 million 

size standard is between 2,829 and 

2,940. Further, some of these Internet 

Service Providers (ISPs) might not be 

independently owned and operated. 

Consequently, we estimate that there are 

fewer than 2,940 small entity ISPs that 

may be affected by the decisions and 

rules of the present action. 

38. Vendors of Internal Connections— 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturers. The Commission has not 

developed a definition of small entities 

applicable to the manufacturers of 

internal network connections. The most 

applicable definitions of a small entity 

are the definitions under the SBA rules 

applicable to manufacturers of ‘‘Radio 

and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing’’ and ‘‘Other 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ According to the SBA’s 

regulations, manufacturers of these 

types of communications equipment 

must have 750 or fewer employees in 

order to qualify as a small business. The 

most recent available Census Bureau 

data indicates that there are 1,187 

companies with fewer than 1,000 

employees in the United States that 

manufacture radio and television 

broadcasting and communications 

equipment, and 271 companies with 

less than 1,000 employees that 

manufacture other communications 

equipment. Some of these 

manufacturers might not be 

independently owned and operated. 

Consequently, we estimate that there are 

fewer than 1,458 small entity internal 

connections manufacturers that may be 

affected by the decisions and rules of 

the present action. 

39. Vendors of Internal Connections— 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturers. The SBA has established 

a small business size standard for radio 

and television broadcasting and wireless 

communications equipment 

manufacturing. Under this standard, 

firms are considered small if they have 

750 or fewer employees. Census Bureau 

data for 1997 indicate that, for that year, 

there were a total of 1,215 

establishments in this category. Of 

those, there were 1,150 that had 

employment under 500, and an 

additional 37 that had employment of 

500 to 999. The percentage of wireless 

equipment manufacturers in this 

category is approximately 61 percent, so 

the Commission estimates that the 

number of wireless equipment 

manufacturers with employment under 

500 was actually closer to 706, with an 

additional 23 establishments having 

employment of between 500 and 999. 

Given the above, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of wireless 

communications equipment 

manufacturers are small businesses. 

4. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

40. The FNPRM does not result in 

additional recordkeeping requirements 

for small businesses. To the extent that 

new items are added to the ESL, 

schools, libraries and service providers 

will merely have additional choices of 

services eligible for discount when they 

voluntarily participate in the E-rate 

program. Likewise, removing or not 

adding a service to the ESL would have 

no additional impact on recordkeeping 

requirements. 

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

41. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance and reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
32698 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for 

small entities. 

42. In the FNPRM, we seek comment 

on a number of issues related to services 

eligible for E-rate discounts, including 

issues raised by the commenters that 

may not have been addressed as part of 

prior ESL proceedings. Specifically, we 

determine that anti-virus and anti-spam 

software and other services should not 

be added to the ESL. We believe that 

keeping these services off the ESL will 

not have an adverse impact on small 

entities since the services were never 

funded in the first place. Applicants and 

service providers have never had an 

expectation that E-rate discounts would 

apply to these services and will 

therefore not be harmed by a decision to 

maintain the status quo. We seek 

comment on this tentative conclusion. 

43. We also make the tentative 

conclusion that web hosting be removed 

from the ESL. We propose, however, 

that this change should be implemented 

in the funding year following the rule 

change. This will give applicants 

affected by the removal of web hosting 

time to find alternative funds for the 

service, if necessary. Delaying the 

removal of web hosting will also 

mitigate any economic impact on those 

small entities providing the service. In 

addition, we propose additional 

outreach from USAC to inform and 

educate applicants and service 

providers on the change. We seek 

comment on these proposals to mitigate 

the impact of removing web hosting and 

seek comment generally on the 

economic impact of this tentative 

decision. 

44. We also make tentative 

conclusions regarding administrative 

matters such as restructuring the eligible 

services rules, requiring USAC to 

submit a proposed draft ESL to the 

Commission on March 30th of each 

year, and revising our rules to state that 

all products and services eligible for Erate support will be named in the ESL. 

We believe these changes will have no 

economic impact on entities 

participating in the E-rate program and, 

indeed, will benefit participants by 

making the rules and application 

process easier to understand and 

administer. We welcome, however, 

comments from parties that have 

opinions different from those reached in 

this analysis. 

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

45. None. 

Paperwork Reduction 

46. This FNPRM does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Ex Parte Presentations 

47. These matters shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 through 

1.1216. Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2). Other 

requirements pertaining to oral and 

written presentations are set forth in 

section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

C. Comment Filing Procedures 

48. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using: (1) The Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies 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 hand or 

messenger delivery, 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. 

• Effective December 28, 2009, all 

hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 

paper filings for the Commission’s 

Secretary must be delivered to FCC 

Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room 

TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

• In addition, one copy of each 

comment or reply comment must be 

sent to Charles Tyler, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room 5–A452, 

Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: 

Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Ordering Clauses 

49. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1 through 4, 201–205, 254, 

303(r), and 403 of the Communications 

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

through 154, 201 through 205, 254, 

303(r), and 403, this further notice of 

proposed rulemaking is adopted. 

50. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this further notice of proposed 

rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54 

Communications common carriers, 

Health facilities, Infants and children, 

Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Schools, 

Telecommunications, Telephone. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32699 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 54 to read as follows: 

PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 

1. The authority citation continues to 

read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 205, 

214, and 254 unless otherwise noted. 

Subpart F—Universal Service Support 

for Schools and Libraries 

2. Section 54.502 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 54.502 Supported services. 

(a) Telecommunications services. For 

purposes of this subpart, supported 

telecommunications services provided 

by telecommunications carriers include 

all commercially available 

telecommunications services in addition 

to all reasonable charges that are 

incurred by taking such services, such 

as state and federal taxes. Charges for 

termination liability, penalty 

surcharges, and other charges not 

included in the cost of taking such 

service shall not be covered by the 

universal service support mechanisms. 

All supported telecommunications 

services are defined and listed in the 

Eligible Services List as updated 

annually in accordance with § 54.503 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

(b) Internet access and information 

services. For purposes of this subpart, 

supported Internet access and 

information services include basic 

conduit access to the Internet and all the 

services defined in § 54.5 of the 

Commission’s rules as Internet access. 

All supported Internet access and 

information services are defined and 

listed in the Eligible Services List as 

updated annually in accordance with 

§ 54.503 of the Commission’s rules. 

(c) Internal connections. 

(1) For purposes of this subpart, a 

service is eligible for support as a 

component of an institution’s internal 

connections if such service is necessary 

to transport information within one or 

more instructional buildings of a single 

school campus or within one or more 

non-administrative buildings that 

comprise a single library branch. 

Discounts are not available for internal 

connections in non-instructional 

buildings of a school or school district, 

or in administrative buildings of a 

library, to the extent that a library 

system has separate administrative 

buildings, unless those internal 

connections are essential for the 

effective transport of information to an 

instructional building of a school or to 

a non-administrative building of a 

library. Internal connections do not 

include connections that extend beyond 

a single school campus or single library 

branch. There is a rebuttable 

presumption that a connection does not 

constitute an internal connection if it 

crosses a public right-of-way. All 

supported internal connections are 

defined and listed in the Eligible 

Services List as updated annually in 

accordance with § 54.503 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

(2) Basic maintenance services. For 

purposes of this subpart, basic 

maintenance services shall be eligible as 

an internal connections service if, but 

for the maintenance at issue, the 

internal connection would not function 

and serve its intended purpose with the 

degree of reliability ordinarily provided 

in the marketplace to entities receiving 

such services. Basic maintenance 

services do not include services that 

maintain equipment that is not 

supported or that enhance the utility of 

equipment beyond the transport of 

information, or diagnostic services in 

excess of those necessary to maintain 

the equipment’s ability to transport 

information. All supported basic 

maintenance is defined and listed in the 

Eligible Services List as updated 

annually in accordance with § 54.503 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

(3) Frequency of discounts for internal 

connections services. Each eligible 

school or library shall be eligible for 

support for internal connections 

services, except basic maintenance 

services, no more than twice every five 

funding years. For the purpose of 

determining eligibility, the five-year 

period begins in any funding year in 

which the school or library receives 

discounted internal connections 

services other than basic maintenance 

services. If a school or library receives 

internal connections services other than 

basic maintenance services that are 

shared with other schools or libraries 

(for example, as part of a consortium), 

the shared services will be attributed to 

the school or library in determining 

whether it is eligible for support. 

(d) Non-telecommunications carriers 

shall be eligible for universal service 

support under this subpart for providing 

the supported services described in 

paragraph (b) and (c) of this section for 

eligible schools, libraries, and consortia 

including those entities. Such services 

provided by non-telecommunications 

carriers shall be subject to all the 

provisions of this subpart, except 

§§ 54.501(a), 54.502(a), and 54.515. 

3. Section 54.503 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 54.503 Eligible services list. 

(a) The Administrator shall submit by 

March 30 of each year a draft list of 

services eligible for support, based on 

the Commission’s rules, in the following 

funding year. The Wireline Competition 

Bureau will issue a Public Notice 

seeking comment on the Administrator’s 

proposed eligible services list. At least 

60 days prior to the opening of the 

window for the following funding year, 

the final list of services eligible for 

support will be released. 

(b) All supported services are defined 

and listed in the Eligible Services List 

as updated annually in accordance with 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

§ 54.506 [Removed and Reserved] 

4. Remove and reserve § 54.506. 

§§ 54.517 and 54.518 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

5. Remove and reserve §§ 54.517 and 

54.518. 

§ 54.522 [Removed and Reserved] 

6. Remove and reserve § 54.522. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12931 Filed 6–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[CC Docket No. 02–6; GN Docket No. 09– 

51; FCC 10–83] 

Schools and Libraries Universal 

Service Support Mechanism, A 

National Broadband Plan for Our 

Future 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on several 

potential reforms that would cut red 

tape by eliminating rules that have not 

effectively served their intended 

purpose, while continuing to protect 

against waste, fraud, and abuse. In 

addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on how to provide stability 

and certainty for the funding of internal 

connections that are necessary to deliver 

higher bandwidth services to the 

classroom and how to expand access to 

funding for internal connections for 

schools and libraries serving 

impoverished populations. Finally, the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1