A.Simplifying the Eligible Services List

A.Simplifying the Eligible Services List

251.The ESL, which is approved by the Bureau and published by USAC each year, provides guidance to applicants on the eligibility of products and services under the E-rate program.¹ Last year, the Bureau reorganized the priority one section of the ESL to consolidate the list of telecommunications services, telecommunications, and Internet access into a single priority one category.² The Bureau recognized that, “when applying for discounts, E-rate applicants are focused on the services they need for their schools and libraries, and may be unfamiliar with the regulatory framework for telecommunications services and Internet access established by Commission rulemakings.”³ Also, the Bureau noted that many of the services purchased by schools and libraries using E-rate funding can fall into more than one of the regulatory classifications. As an example, one of the commenters in that proceeding asserted that many applicants erroneously think that they do not need to request Internet access when they are requesting cellular service with data packages and e-mail access.⁴ The Bureau also determined that applicants would no longer be expected to classify their service requests into telecommunications service or Internet services categories when soliciting bids for those services on the FCC Form 470,⁵ but that applicants must continue to select the correct category of service on the FCC Form 471 application because this serves statutory and regulatory purposes.⁶

252.In the Healthcare Connect Fund Order, the Commission determined that it should support broadband Internet access services and also high-capacity transmission services offered on a common carrier and a non-common carrier basis to allow health care providers to choose from a wide-range of connectivity solutions using any technology from any provider.¹ Building off this decision, we seek comment on eliminating the regulatory categories with respect to E-rate supported services. Instead, we propose only that an applicant indicate on the FCC Form 470 the requested service priority level as well as provide enough detail for service providers to identify the requested services and formulate bids on the FCC Form 470.² The FCC Form 471 application would also require the service priority level (e.g., priority one or priority two) and the Item 21 attachment would continue to be used by applicants to describe the services for which they seek discounts for each funding request. We seek comment on these changes to the E-rate forms.

253.After the ESL was revised for funding year 2013, the Bureau continued to require applicants to select the correct category of service on the FCC Form 471 application.¹ One of the reasons for retaining this requirement is because USAC uses the service category selections to determine which applicants have sought Internet access and/or internal connections and this need to comply with CIPA.² We seek comment on an alternative way for USAC to determine which applicants are required to be CIPA-compliant. For example, should we add a checkbox to the FCC Form 471 with a certification that the applicant is seeking discounts for Internet access and/or internal connections and is subject to CIPA requirements? If so, should we also add the actual CIPA certification to this checkbox allowing the applicant to certify its compliance with CIPA? This would allow us to remove the CIPA certification from the FCC Forms 479 and 486 so that applicants would not have to certify to CIPA on multiple forms. In its June 2013 White Paper, SECA suggests that applicants be given the option of providing the information currently required on the FCC Form 486 on the Form 471.³ Although, SECA also suggests that applicants who prefer to continue filing the FCC Form 486, be given that option as well and a check box to designate this preference can be included on the FCC Form 471.⁴ We seek comment on both of these possible approaches. Would either approach streamline the application, commitment and disbursement process for applicants? Would moving the CIPA certification work for all applicants including consortia?

A.Funding Recovery Considerations

254.In 2000, the Commission adopted the Commitment Adjustment Implementation Order, which consistent with the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) set up a framework for recovering funds committed or disbursed in violation of the Act and our rules.¹ USAC implemented a process for recovering funds disbursed in violation of statutory and rule violations and, in 2004, as part of the Schools and Libraries Fifth Report and Order, the Commission largely affirmed and further refined USAC’s approach when determining what amounts should be recovered by USAC and the Commission when funds have been disbursed in violation of the Commission’s E-rate program rules.² The Commission concluded that there are circumstances that warrant full recovery of disbursed funds. For instance, the Commission found that full recovery is appropriate when the applicant failed to comply with the Commission’s competitive bidding requirements.³ The Commission also found that a lack of necessary resources to use the supported services warrants full recovery of funds disbursed for all relevant funding requests.⁴ The Commission recognized, however, that recovery may not be appropriate for violation of some procedural rules implemented to enhance operation of the E-rate program.⁵ At the same time, the Commission must comply with federal obligations to recover funding that has been improperly disbursed.⁶

255.We recognize the importance of preventing and ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse in the E-rate program and believe that strong rules requiring applicants to reimburse USAC if they are found to have violated a statutory obligation are a powerful deterrent to waste, fraud and abuse. At the same time, as our rules have expanded, the risk to applicants of having USAC or the Commission seek full reimbursement of previously disbursed funds based on a rule or program violation has also grown, and sometimes full reimbursement is not commensurate with the violation incurred. We therefore seek comment on whether there are certain program violations that warrant reduced recovery or some other punitive measure short of recovery. For example, would reduced recovery be warranted where an applicant delayed installation of equipment due to human resource limitations or where an applicant did not conduct a broadband assessment at the beginning of the full funding year? Are the Commission’s findings that competitive bidding or necessary resources violations require full recovery still appropriate or should we reconsider those findings? Are there appropriate punitive measures we could implement that more closely tie to the improper behavior? We ask that commenters provide specific scenarios under which they think reduced penalties would be warranted, the rationale supporting reduced recovery under such scenarios, and commenters’ suggestions for how the amount of recovery should be recovered. We specifically seek comments identifying a bright line approach to determining recovery amounts for rule violations, creating a system of recovery that is fair, predictable, transparent and administratively efficient. Furthermore, we seek comment on how the Commission could comply with its legal requirements under such a process.

Directory: edocs public -> attachmatch
attachmatch -> Commissioner ajit pai
attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D
attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D
attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D
attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D
attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D
attachmatch -> Federal Communications Commission fcc 15-77 Before the Federal Communications Commission
attachmatch -> Statement of commissioner ajit pai

Download 1.15 Mb.

Share with your friends: