With the FCC’s draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking circulating ahead of a scheduled vote, two significant ex parte filings were submitted to the Commission this week outlining concerns from key E-rate stakeholders.
Who Filed
The Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition (SHLB), joined by the American Library Association, AASA, the American Federation of School Administrators, the National Education Association, the State E-rate Coordinators’ Alliance, and CoSN, filed an ex parte on June 16 summarizing meetings held with staff from all three FCC commissioners’ offices. Meetings took place June 12 with advisors to Commissioner Gomez and Commissioner Trusty, and June 15 with Senior Counsel to Chairman Carr.
The State E-rate Coordinators’ Alliance (SECA) filed its own separate ex parte on June 18 with additional requests directed specifically at the CIPA-related provisions and consortium requirements in the draft order.
Key Requests
Both filings share three core requests:
Recategorize the NPRM as a Notice of Inquiry
Both SHLB and SECA argue that the NPRM portion of the draft order — paragraphs 1-42 — asks broad questions without proposing specific rule changes, and therefore does not meet the standard for a traditional NPRM under the Administrative Procedure Act. SECA cited the FCC’s own website, which defines an NOI as “released for the purpose of gathering information about a broad subject” and distinguishes it from an NPRM, which “contains proposed changes to the Commission’s rules.” Both organizations argue the current draft fits the NOI definition, not the NPRM standard.
Extend the Comment Period
SHLB requested 120 days for initial comments and 90 days for reply comments. SECA requested 90 days for initial comments and 120 days for reply comments. Both noted that the current 30-day comment window would fall largely during summer months when school administrators, technology directors, and state officials are less available, and that the scope of the proceeding warrants substantially more time.
Remove or Revise Termination Language
SHLB urged the Commission to remove paragraphs 12 and 18, which ask whether the E-rate program should be terminated or limited to certain geographic areas or recipient types. SHLB argued that Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act provides no statutory authority for the Commission to terminate or geographically limit the program, and that including these questions directs the comment cycle toward program preservation rather than substantive policy discussion.
Additional Issues Raised
Beyond the shared requests, each filing raised distinct concerns:
SHLB
SHLB asked the Commission to add questions to the final item addressing the current impact of E-rate on communities, competition, and infrastructure. SHLB also raised concerns about:
- The reversal of the presumption that on-campus activities serve an educational purpose
- The need for clarification that outside legal counsel are not included in the consultant definition
- The administrative burden on consortium members under the proposed Form 479 certification requirements
SECA
SECA provided detailed data on the impact of proposed Form 479 requirements on consortium members who participate in E-rate only through a consortium and have no independent EPC access. In four sample states, SECA found that a substantial majority of consortium members fall into this category:
- Maine: 393 of 471 total members do not participate in E-rate except through the consortium
- Missouri: 224 of 339 members do not participate in E-rate on their own
- Wyoming: 29 of 50 members participate in E-rate only through the consortium
- Washington state: 81 of 281 members do not file for E-rate on their own
SECA requested that consortium leads be permitted to upload completed Form 479s on behalf of members as an alternative to requiring individual EPC completion, and asked for a 120-day grace period for implementing any new Form 479 requirements.
SECA also raised a specific drafting concern regarding paragraph 33 of the draft order, which describes CIPA’s scope more broadly than the statute supports. SECA noted that paragraph 26 correctly limits CIPA’s application to schools and libraries receiving E-rate funding for Internet access, Internet service, or internal connections — but that paragraph 33 uses the broader phrase “E-rate supported services,” which could be read to extend CIPA obligations to entities receiving funding only for telecommunications services, contrary to the statute.
What Comes Next
The FCC is expected to vote on the item at its June 2026 open meeting. The formal comment period will begin following publication of the adopted order in the Federal Register. Funds For Learning will continue to monitor developments and will provide guidance to clients on comment opportunities and timelines as they are confirmed.
